CNL-20-032, Response to Request for Additional Information (TS-19-02) Application to Revise Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis

Response to Request for Additional Information (TS-19-02) Application to Revise Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis

ML20135H067
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	05/14/2020
From:	Jim Barstow Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20135H065	List: CNL-20-032, Response to Request for Additional Information (TS-19-02) Application to Revise Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis
References
CNL-20-032, EPID L-2020-LLA-0004
Download: ML20135H067 (55)

Text

Proprietary Information Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 This letter is decontrolled when separated from Enclosure 2 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 CNL-20-032 May 14, 2020 10 CFR 50.90 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 NRC Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328

Subject:

Application to Revise Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis -

Response to Request for Additional Information (TS-19-02)

(EPID L-2020-LLA-0004)

References:

1. TVA Letter to NRC, CNL-19-066, Application to Revise Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis (TS-19-02), dated January 14, 2020 (ML20016A396 and ML20016A397)

2. TVA Letter to NRC, CNL-20-026, Supplement to Application to Revise Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis, (TS-19-02)

(EPID L-2020-LLA-0004), dated February 18, 2020 (ML20049H184)

3. NRC Electronic Mail to TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Request for Additional Information Regarding the Hydrologic Analysis LAR (EPID L-2020-LLA-0004), dated April 14, 2020 (ML20106F104)

In Reference 1, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a request for an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2, respectively. This license amendment request (LAR) revises the SQN Units 1 and 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to reflect the results from the new hydrologic analysis. TVA determined that the proposed changes to the SQN UFSAR require prior Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval.

Proprietary Information Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 This letter is decontrolled when separated from Enclosure 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CNL-20-032 Page 2 May 14, 2020 In Reference 2, TVA provided a response to a request for information to support the NRC acceptance review of the LAR. In Reference 3, the NRC provided a request for additional information (RAI). Enclosure 1 to this letter provides the response to the RAI. In support of this RAI response, Enclosure 2 to this letter contains portions of the Barge Design Solutions (Barge)

Software Dedication Report, and Enclosure 3 contains portions of TVA calculation CDQ0000002016000044, Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Development. For Enclosures 2 and 3, executable files and some supplemental files have been removed to support transmittal, but can be made available if needed for NRC review. , in its entirety, contains information that Barge considers to be proprietary pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding," paragraph (a)(4). Enclosure 4 provides the Barge affidavit supporting this proprietary withholding request. The affidavit sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the NRC and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of 10 CFR 2.390. Accordingly, TVA requests that the information which is proprietary to Barge be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390.

This letter does not change the no significant hazard considerations nor the environmental considerations contained in Reference 1. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1),

TVA is sending a copy of this letter and the enclosure to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

Please address any questions regarding this request to Kimberly D. Hulvey, Senior Manager, Fleet Licensing, at 423-751-3275. There are no new regulatory commitments contained in this submittal.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 14th day of May 2020.

Respectfully, James Barstow Vice President, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs & Support Services

Enclosures:

1. Response to NRC IQVB Request for Additional Information

2. Barge Software Dedication Report (Proprietary)

3. Gridded PMP Development Calculation (Calculation CDQ0000002016000044)

4. Barge Affidavit cc: See Page 3

Enclosure 1 Response to NRC IQVB Request for Additional Information NRC Introduction In a letter dated January 14, 2020 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML20016A396), as supplemented by a letter dated February 18, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20049H184), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant related to a new hydrologic analysis. The NRC staff has reviewed the information in the submittals and has determined that additional information is needed in order for the NRC staff to complete its review.

RAI-IQVB-1 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.34(b)(6)(ii) requires information to be provided regarding the managerial and administrative controls to be used to assure safe operation, including a discussion of how applicable requirements within Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, to 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, are satisfied. In the February 18, 2020, Supplement TVA stated, in part, The dedication of the [Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)] Evaluation Tool was performed under the Barge Design Solutions (Barge) Nuclear Quality Assurance (QA) program...The Barge QA program has been audited and accepted by TVA and is on the TVA Acceptable Supplier List (ASL)...While the ArcGIS and [Quantum GIS (QGIS)] evaluation tools were not dedicated, the calculations performed using these tools were checked by either hand calculations or using alternative software in accordance with Barge procedures for design calculations and computer program applications, under the Barge QA program, which complies with NQA-1 Part II Subpart 2.7 Paragraph 202 and is consistent with similar TVA process control procedures under the TVA QA Program. The ArcGIS software functions that are outside of the functions included in the PMP Evaluation Tool

[Software Dedication Report (SDR)], as noted above, were checked using QGIS as the alternate software in accordance with NQA-1 Part II Subpart 2.7 Paragraph 202 under the Barge QA Program.

In accordance with NQA-1-2008 and the 2009 Addenda, Part II, Subpart 2.7, Paragraph 202, The appropriate software engineering elements, described in para. 202 of this Subpart, shall define the control points and associated reviews. Reviews of software shall ensure compliance with the approved software design requirements...When review alone is not adequate to determine if requirements are met, alternate calculations shall be used, or tests shall be developed and integrated into the appropriate activities of the software development cycle.

The NRC staff reviewed the supplemental information provided by TVA and finds that the following additional information is needed to determine whether the procurement and use of the ArcGIS and QGIS evaluation tools are appropriately controlled under TVAs QA program in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

Specifically, the NRC staff requests TVA to provide the following:

a) Information to clarify how hand calculations are used to verify the outputs of any of the tools used, including the PMP Evaluation Tool, ArcGIS and QGIS.

CNL-20-032 E1-1 of 4

Enclosure 1 b) For cases where the output of one software tool (e.g., QGIS) is used to verify the output of another software tool (ArcGIS), information to demonstrate that these tools are sufficiently diverse (e.g., use of different software developers, different calculation methods, different software algorithms, different programming languages used to develop the tools) such that the potential for these tools to produce the same erroneous outputs are significantly reduced.

c) Information supporting the dedication of the PMP Evaluation Tool performed by Barge Design Solutions, including the dedication plan, the critical characteristics of the tool, the acceptance methods used, and documents (e.g., PMP Evaluation Tool SDR) demonstrating that commercial grade dedication was implemented adequately.

TVA Response to NRC RAI Quality Assurance Vendor Inspection Branch (IQVB)-1 Part a:

In Reference 1, TVA provided general information in regard to the methodologies used to perform alternate calculations. This general information stated that hand calculations could be used as an alternate calculation. However, in the development of the basin average PMP depths, hand calculations were not used to check the results of the PMP Evaluation tool or the ArcGIS and the QGIS tools outside of the PMP Evaluation Tool.

Calculations made within ArcGIS outside of the PMP Evaluation Tool were checked via alternate methodologies within QGIS by comparison of the average basin rainfall depth determined by the two different GIS methodologies as described in the gridded PMP development calculation (Enclosure 3). The Microsoft Excel workbook and those portions of the Python scripting outside the PMP Evaluation tool were checked and design verified under the Barge QA program. Detailed descriptions of the Microsoft Excel workbook and Python scripting are provided in Appendix A of Enclosure 3.

The PMP Evaluation Tool has been dedicated utilizing the Barge Nuclear QA program through rigorous testing and research for features of the software by completion of a series of test cases. These results along with the limitation of the PMP Evaluation Tool software are documented in the SDR (Enclosure 2). Therefore, Barge concluded the PMP Evaluation Tool software is dedicated and may be used as pre-verified software.

Figure 1 shows the key elements in the development of the gridded PMP and to note the verification method for each element.

CNL-20-032 E1-2 of 5

Input Information Gridded PMP Point Data Development - Dedicated Software Non-QA GIS Software Tools - Alternate Calculations Results Excel Workbook - Appendix A-D (Design Review*)

User Input Python Script Python Script Sub-basin Text file Storm Types, commands ArcGIS to commands ArcGIS of user input Durations, Basins Create TIN to Utilize Polygon (Design Review*)

of Interest (Design (Triangular Irregular Volume Tool Review*) Network) (Design Refview*)

(Design Review*)

Excel Macro pulls QGIS and ArcGIS results; comparison shows <1%

ArcGIS Base Event Specific Python Script ArcGIS Sub-Python Script - ArcGIS Tool Pathway # 1 (Appendix A-F GIS (Design Review*) basin Weighted GIS (Geographic Informaton System) Tools Python Base.py) Average PMP Non-QA (Design Review*) Depths (Alternate Calculation Verification*)

(Non-QA) ArcGIS Sub-basin Weighted Average PMP Depths (Alternate Modified PMP Evluation Tool difference (Design Review*)

Calculation run by script with user inputs (Appendix A - Section TVA Project Sub-basins Verification*)

4.3)

Shapefile (Appendix A- (Nuclear QA Section 4.1, Appendix (Dedicated in SDR (Software Dedication Report)*) QGIS Sub-basin Results)

A-A) Weighted (Design Review*) QGIS Tool Pathway # 2 Average PMP GIS Tools - Non-QA Depths (Alternate Calculation Verification*) (Non-QA Alternate Calc)

Gridded PMP Sub-Basin GIS Point Data Encapsulating Shapefile of TVA sub-(results based basins shapes, area on dedicated and positions software tool) QGIS Python Python Scipt run Python Scripts (1) command (Appendix A ,Section (Nuclear QA Script Appendix A- with QGIS by User to Create Raster Surface and 4.4, Appendix A-B) G QGIS Depths.py (Design Review*) (2) to run Grid Statistics For (Design Review*) (Design Review*) Polygon Tool (Design Review*)

• Verification Method Figure No. 1

Enclosure 1 TVA Response to NRC RAI IQVB-1 Part b:

The dedicated PMP Evaluation tool generated gridded precipitation shapefile data. The gridded precipitation shapefile was used to generate sub-basin average PMP depths for use in the subsequent hydrologic analysis. Sub-basin average PMP depths computed in ArcGIS were verified using independently developed QGIS software as an alternate calculation method.

ArcGIS, an industry standard software package for large scale geospatial analysis, was developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ESRI does not provide access or distribute the source code to the public or other developers without proper licensing. Alternatively, QGIS is an independently developed software that utilizes contributions from multiple sources including non-governmental organizations and academic research. QGIS is also widely used in the industry and academia for large scale geospatial analysis.

The sub-basin average rainfall depths used for the PMP analysis were computed using two different calculation methods applied within the ArcGIS and QGIS software packages. In ESRIs ArcGIS, the gridded shapefile data was utilized to create a Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) surface. The resulting TIN surface was processed using a polygon volume tool to compute sub-basin average PMP depths. The QGIS alternate methodology utilized the nearest neighbor geoprocessing tool to generate a raster surface. A grid statistics tool within QGIS was utilized to compute the sub-basin average PMP depths. The nearest neighbor and grid statistics geoprocessing tools within QGIS were originally part of the SAGA GIS software which was developed by the Department of Physical Geography at the University of Gttingen, Germany.

Because ArcGIS and QGIS tools utilize different software developers, different calculation methods, and different software algorithms, the potential for the tools to produce the same erroneous outputs are significantly reduced. These tools are sufficiently diverse such that comparison of the outputs provides an alternate calculation for verifying the computer program results for each application as required by Barge QA program procedures.

TVA Response to NRC RAI IQVB-1 Part c:

The PMP Evaluation Tool has been dedicated utilizing the Barge Nuclear QA program through testing and research for features of the software by completion of a series of test cases. The PMP Evaluation Tool SDR (Enclosure 2) details the Dedication Plan (Attachment 4 to Enclosure 2), critical characteristics of the tool (Section 4 to Enclosure 2), and acceptance methods used (Attachment 4 to Enclosure 2). The PMP Evaluation Tool SDR demonstrates the software dedication was implemented adequately under the Barge Design Solutions QA Program.

RAI-IQVB-2 10 CFR Part 21 defines the term dedication, in part as, an acceptance process undertaken to provide reasonable assurance that a commercial grade item to be used as a basic component will perform its intended safety and, in this respect deemed equivalent to an item designed and manufactured under a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B quality assurance program. In all cases, the dedication process must be conducted in CNL-20-032 E1-4 of 5

Enclosure 1 accordance with applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. Criterion III, Design Control of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, requires, in part, that Measures shall also be established for the selection and review for suitability of application of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are essential to the safety-related functions of the structures, systems and components... Design changes, including field changes, shall be subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design and be approved by the organization that performed the original design unless the applicant designates another responsible organization. In Attachment A to LAR to Enclosure 5, TVA stated in part, that The [Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)

Evaluation] Tool was used, as provided, as part of commercial grade dedication, with the following minor modifications. This attachment identified four modifications made to PMP Evaluation Tool and the rationale for making these modifications.

The NRC staff evaluated the information presented by TVA regarding these modifications to the previous dedicated PMP Evaluation Tool and finds that additional information is needed to support the staffs safety evaluation. Specifically, the NRC staff requests that TVA provide information to demonstrate that the minor modifications made to the PMP Evaluation Tool do not invalidate the results of the dedication of this tool and that these modifications were conducted under TVAs quality assurance program, as required by Criterion III of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

TVA Response to RAI 2:

In Attachment A to Enclosure 5 of Reference 2, TVA stated in part, The [Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Evaluation] tool was used, as provided, as part of the software dedication, with the following minor modifications.

TVA clarifies the sentence structure as follows:

The [Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Evaluation] tool was used, as provided, as part of the software dedication, with the following minor modifications as part of the software dedication.

The minor modifications to the PMP Evaluation Tool discussed in Attachment A to Enclosure 5 of Reference 2 are addressed in Enclosure 2 under the Barge QA program as required by Criterion III of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the minor modifications made to the PMP Evaluation Tool do not invalidate the results of the dedication of this tool and that these modifications were conducted under TVAs QA program, as required by Criterion III of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

References:

1. TVA Letter to NRC, CNL-20-026, Supplement to Application to Revise Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis, (TS-19-02) (EPID L-2020-LLA-0004), dated February 18, 2020 (ML20049H184)

2. TVA Letter to NRC, CNL-19-066, "Application to Revise Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Regarding Changes to Hydrologic Analysis (TS-19-02), dated January 14, 2020 (ML20016A396 and ML20016A397)

CNL-20-032 E1-5 of 5

Proprietary Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR § 2.390 Enclosure 2 Barge Software Dedication Report (Proprietary)

(Executable files removed)

CNL-20-032

Enclosure 3 Gridded PMP Development Calculation (Executable Files Removed)

CNL-20-032

QA Record TVA NUCLEAR CALCULATION COVERSHEET/ CTS UPDATE Page 1 REV O EDiRIMS O B41180918001 I§ TYPE; Calculation I I

DMS TYE!;*

CALCULATtO"'"S (NUCLEAR)

!;;QM§ 8CSS!ON NO (NIA for R!;;V 0)

NIA Cale Tillo~ Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Development E.l,,6lli E3 l:l'!.!MBEB CUR REV Ef' REJ::'.

CALCID N\JC GEN CEB CDQ0000002016000044 NIA 000 CTS UPOATE ONLY 0 NO CTS CrlANGES 0 (Verifier and Appro*,.i: Signoluros Not Roqu rod) (Fo1 calc rcviicn, CTS !".us bean reviewed and no CTS cNmge5 re-;:J *e:J)

!.t:J.!I (chock one)

I

ri:SIEMS  !.lli.lQ.S o * , . 2 . 3 D 000 NIA ECP NIA APE:LICABLE DSIGN DOCllMENT{Sl CLASSIFICATION See** Below E I

N/A I

QUALITY SAFETY RELATED? UN\ll;RIFIED SPECIAL REOUIRFMENTS DES1N QtHP1,tr rffknpj §8MS and/or ISFSI REII\TED'> I (If yes, OR :- yes) ASSUMPTIQN AND/OR Ll1.<1Ilt:1Q QQNQIIIQ? SAB,iCoC AFF!:;CTED QUTPUT Yes l8l No D Yes No Ye No [8) Ye D No0 Yes D No Yes No MI8C.J..iME_tj.J1 Yes CA!,CULATION N!,.!M!;!l;R REOUESTOR PREPARING DISClPLINE VERIFlATION METHQD ItjQQ QF 6NALYSJS Name Stuart Henry CEB Design Review 0 Yes 0No Phone:865-637*2810 PREPARER {PRINT NAME AND SI Stuart N. Hon n DATE

/,7 µ:?'

CHECKER (PINT NAME AN GN)

EncKhg /t<.._ DAl f}{118 VERIFIER {PRl'lT APPROVAL (PRINT NAME'A.t!DICN) ,,

t, (/(/ .

' Ot-.TE

?L Andrew Murr 0 gl/18 -OG 1$ ': ) f.J< iJ) I 0 1,'-l,,

I STATEMENT or PRQBLEP.1/A f I

This calculation prepares inputs for lhe flood hazard reevaluation models using the gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Analysis. Outputs consist of sub-basin PMP values for use in subsequent calculations.

This calculation will support development of calculations to support License Amendment Requests for revision of the Watts Bar and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant design basis river flooding analysis and will support a revision to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Flood Hazard Re-evaluation river flooding analysis if it is controlling at Browns Ferry. This calculation will support a re-evaluation of nood mechanism parameters to demonstrate the flood mechanism is bounded as documented in the Focused Evaluation for SON, WBN. and BFN.

NOTE: Utilization of the contents of this calculation for the Browns Ferry Design Basis requires NRC approval via a License Amendment Request (LAR).

" SON - DCN 23628 WBN - DCN 66358 MICROFICHE./EFICHE Yes D No (8j FICHE NUMBER(S)

TVA '10$32 Page , of 2 NEDP-2-1 111-07-2016]

NPG CALCULATION COVERSHEET / CTS UPDATE Page 2 CALC ID ORG PLANT BRANCH NUMBER REV NUC GEN CEB CDQ0000002016000044 000 BUILDING ROOM ELEVATION COORD/AZIM FIRM NA NA NA NA Barge CATEGORIES KEYWORDS (A-add, D-delete)

ACTION KEYWORD A/D KEYWORD (A/D)

HYDROLOGY INFLOWS RAINFALL CROSS-REFERENCES (A-add, D-delete)

ACTION XREF XREF XREF XREF XREF (A/D) CODE PLANT TYPE NUMBER REV A S WBN DCN 66358 A S SQN DCN 23628 A P GEN Calculation CDQ0000002016000041 001 A P GEN Calculation CDQ0000002016000045 000 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080056 1 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080057 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080058 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080059 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080060 3 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080061 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080062 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080063 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080064 3 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080065 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080066 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080067 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080068 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080069 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080070 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080071 2 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080072 2 CTS ONLY UPDATES:

Following are required only when making keyword/cross reference CTS updates and page 1 of form NEDP-2-1 is not included:

PREPARER (PRINT NAME AND SIGN) DATE CHECKER (PRINT NAME AND SIGN) DATE PREPARER PHONE NO. EDMS ACCESSION NO.

TVA 40532 Page 2 of 2 NEDP-2-1 [11-07-2016]

NPG CALCULATION COVERSHEET / CTS UPDATE Page 3 CALC ID ORG PLANT BRANCH NUMBER REV NUC GEN CEB CDQ0000002016000044 000 BUILDING ROOM ELEVATION COORD/AZIM FIRM NA NA NA NA Barge CATEGORIES KEYWORDS (A-add, D-delete)

ACTION KEYWORD A/D KEYWORD (A/D)

CROSS-REFERENCES (A-add, D-delete)

ACTION XREF XREF XREF XREF XREF (A/D) CODE PLANT TYPE NUMBER REV A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080073 1 A P GEN Calculation CDQ000020080091 2 A P GEN Calculation RSOO1HROGCDX00032620100001 0 A P GEN Calculation CDQ0000002014000015 0 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000054 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000055 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000056 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000057 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000058 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000059 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000060 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000061 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000062 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000063 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000064 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000065 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000067 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000068 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000069 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000070 000 CTS ONLY UPDATES:

Following are required only when making keyword/cross reference CTS updates and page 1 of form NEDP-2-1 is not included:

PREPARER (PRINT NAME AND SIGN) DATE CHECKER (PRINT NAME AND SIGN) DATE PREPARER PHONE NO. EDMS ACCESSION NO.

TVA 40532 Page 2 of 2 NEDP-2-1 [11-07-2016]

NPG CALCULATION COVERSHEET / CTS UPDATE Page 4 CALC ID ORG PLANT BRANCH NUMBER REV NUC GEN CEB CDQ0000002016000044 000 BUILDING ROOM ELEVATION COORD/AZIM FIRM NA NA NA NA Barge CATEGORIES KEYWORDS (A-add, D-delete)

ACTION KEYWORD A/D KEYWORD (A/D)

CROSS-REFERENCES (A-add, D-delete)

ACTION XREF XREF XREF XREF XREF (A/D) CODE PLANT TYPE NUMBER REV A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000071 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000072 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000073 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000074 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000075 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000076 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000077 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000078 000 A S GEN Calculation CDQ0000002017000080 000 CTS ONLY UPDATES:

Following are required only when making keyword/cross reference CTS updates and page 1 of form NEDP-2-1 is not included:

PREPARER (PRINT NAME AND SIGN) DATE CHECKER (PRINT NAME AND SIGN) DATE PREPARER PHONE NO. EDMS ACCESSION NO.

TVA 40532 Page 2 of 2 NEDP-2-1 [11-07-2016]

Page 5 TVA NUCLEAR CALCULATION RECORD OF REVISION CALCULATION IDENTIFIER CDQ0000002016000044 Title Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Development Revision DESCRIPTION OF REVISION No.

000 Initial Issue: 29 Pages UFSAR for WBN and UFSAR for SQN have been reviewed and are affected by this calculation.

A License Amendment Request is required. The UFSAR/TSs/ISFSI documents are not affected for BFN since the calculation is beyond design basis for BFN. Tech Specs for WBN and SQN have been reviewed and determined not to be affected by this revision of the calculation. ISFSI CFSARs and CoCs for WBN and SQN were reviewed and determined not to be affected by this calculation. The 10 CFR 72.212 Evaluation Reports for WBN and SQN are affected by this calculation. Review was performed by H.L. Smith Sawyer with knowledge of the analysis inputs and methodologies which are described in each UFSAR. This review does not represent a 50.59 or 72.48 review in accordance with NPG-SPP-09.4 and NPG-SPP-09.9, as applicable.

This calculation will support development of calculations to support a License Amendment Request for revision of the WBN and SQN design basis river flooding analysis and will support a re-evaluation of flood mechanism parameters to demonstrate the flood mechanism is bounded as documented in the Focused Evaluation for SQN, WBN, and BFN.

NOTE: Utilization of the contents of this calculation for the Browns Ferry Design Basis requires prior NRC approval via a License Amendment Request (LAR).

Barge software controls for QA software applications meet the intent of NPG-SPP-12.7 TVA 40709 [12-2015] Page 1 of 1 NEDP-2-2 [12-18-2015]

Page 6 TVA NUCLEAR CALCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Calculation Identifier: CDQ0000002016000044 Revision: 000 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE Coversheet 1 CTS Update Sheet 2 Record of Revision 5 Table of Contents 6 Verification Form 7 Computer Input Sheet 8 Computer Program Application Form 9 1.0 Purpose 13 2.0 References 13 3.0 Assumptions 15 4.0 Design Input Data 15 5.0 Special Requirements / Limiting Conditions 15 6.0 Computations and Analysis 15 7.0 Summary of Results 21 8.0 Conclusions 29 Appendices Total Pages A GIS PMP Event Depth Computations 11 B Reservoir Analysis N/A Attachments 1 PMP Depth Generation Process Overview 1 Supplements Total Pages 1 HMR-41 157 2 HMR-56 238 TVA 40710 [12-2015] Page 1 of 1 NEDP-2-3 [12-18-2015]

e i TVA NUCLEAR CALCULATION VERIFICATION FORM Calculation Identifier CDO0000002016000044 Revision 000 Method of verification used:

1. Design Review

2. Alternate Calculation Veri r Andrew Murr Date L//-7 /

Qualification Test Comments:

This calculation, entitled Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Development, was verified by independent design review. The process involved a critical review of the calculation to ensure that it is correct and complete, uses appropriate methodologies, and achieves its intended purpose. The inputs were reviewed and determined to be appropriate inputs for this calculation. The results of the calculation were reviewed and were found to be reasonable and consistent with the inputs provided. Backup files and documents were consulted as necessary to verify data and analysis details found in the calculation.

Detailed comments and editorial suggestions for the changes made in this revision were transmitted to the author and reviewer by email.

This calculation has been approved for release by authorized personnel. The approver ensures that the calculation has been developed, reviewed, and verified by trained and qualified project personnel.

TVA 40533[12-2015] Page 1 of 1 NEDP-2-4 [12-18-2015]

Page 8 TVA NUCLEAR COMPUTER INPUT FILE STORAGE INFORMATION SHEET Document CDQ0000002016000044 Rev. 000 Plant: GEN

Subject:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Development Electronic storage of the input files for this calculation is not required. Comments:

Input files for this calculation have been stored electronically and sufficient identifying information is provided below for each input file. (Any retrieved file requires re-verification of its contents before use.)

These files are electronically attached to the parent ADOBE.pdf calculation file or stored in Filekeeper. All files are therefore stored in an unalterable medium and are retrievable through the EDMS number for this calculation or from Filekeeper.

Electronically attached files are listed in the CDQ0000002016000044 _Electronic_File_Attachments.pdf.

u Microfiche/eFiche TVA 40535 [12-2015] Page 1 of 1 NEDP-2-6 [12-18-2015]

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 9

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION Program Name: Note 3 Microsoft Excel Program Version: 2016 Description of Program:

Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application that features calculating, graphing, and macro programming. Excel organizes, analyzes, and formats data.

Description of the supporting application or function of the Computer Program to the Calculation:

Microsoft Excel was used as a calculator with graphing functions employed for visual review.

EVALUATION COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION QUESTIONS RESULTS

1. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library with an acceptable status Yes No of Active for use for the final design? Note 2

• If No, STOP and consult the Project Manager or list computer program as an unverified assumption.

2. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library the same as used in the Yes No calculation? Note 1

3. Is the Computer Program a preverified program? Note 1 Yes No

• If No, discuss below in Comments or additional clarification.

Verified for each application.

Verified by alternate calculation.

• If Yes, list the Software Dedication Report (SDR) number below.

SDR with Revision:

Is the scope of this calculation within the capabilities and limitations of the SDR? Note 1 Yes No

4. Are the computer program inputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

5. Are the computer program outputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

6. Are there any outstanding computer program errors that could affect the results? Yes No

• If Yes, is the issue listed as an unverified assumption or otherwise identified? Note 1 Yes No

7. Was the analysis performed on a computer designated to run the Computer Program? Yes No Note 1 List the verification method used (See QA-CP-06, Computer Program Applications) for the computer program where results are verified for each application or by alternate calculation:

Hand calculation Comments or additional clarification (a No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 requires an explanation):

Verified by hand calculation for each application Note:

1. A No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 indicates the calculation is incomplete or requires an explanation in the comments block for special circumstances.

2. Consult the Software Library for a listing of Barge approved Computer Programs or software and associated user manuals.

3. Utilize a separate page for each Computer Program used in the calculation.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 10

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION Program Name: Note 3 ArcGIS Program Version: 10.2.2 Description of Program:

ArcGIS is geographic information system (GIS) software. A GIS integrates hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information. GIS allows users to view, understand, question, interpret, and visualize data in many ways that reveal relationships, patterns, and trends in the form of maps, globes, reports, and charts.

Description of the supporting application or function of the Computer Program to the Calculation:

Software was used to develop average sub-basin rainfall depths from the gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) depths as provided by References 2.3 and 2.23.

EVALUATION COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION QUESTIONS RESULTS

1. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library with an acceptable status Yes No of Active for use for the final design? Note 2

• If No, STOP and consult the Project Manager or list computer program as an unverified assumption.

2. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library the same as used in the Yes No calculation? Note 1

3. Is the Computer Program a preverified program? Note 1 Yes No

• If No, discuss below in Comments or additional clarification.

Verified for each application.

Verified by alternate calculation.

• If Yes, list the Software Dedication Report (SDR) number below.

SDR with Revision:

Is the scope of this calculation within the capabilities and limitations of the SDR? Note 1 Yes No

4. Are the computer program inputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

5. Are the computer program outputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

6. Are there any outstanding computer program errors that could affect the results? Yes No

• If Yes, is the issue listed as an unverified assumption or otherwise identified? Note 1 Yes No

7. Was the analysis performed on a computer designated to run the Computer Program? Yes No Note 1 List the verification method used (See QA-CP-06, Computer Program Applications) for the computer program where results are verified for each application or by alternate calculation:

Alternate analyses using comparable software were performed using the same input data. Comparison of the output from both primary and alternate implementations is included in Appendix A.

Comments or additional clarification (a No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 requires an explanation):

ArcGIS operation verified using QGIS.

Note:

1. A No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 indicates the calculation is incomplete or requires an explanation in the comments block for special circumstances.

2. Consult the Software Library for a listing of Barge approved Computer Programs or software and associated user manuals.

3. Utilize a separate page for each Computer Program used in the calculation.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 11

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION Program Name: Note 3 Quantum GIS (QGIS) Program Version: 2.8.2 Description of Program:

QGIS is a geographic information system (GIS) software package that integrates spatial data capture, management, analysis and display.

Description of the supporting application or function of the Computer Program to the Calculation:

QGIS software was used to validate ArcGIS software operation in development of average sub-basin rainfall depths from the gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) depths as provided by References 2.3 and 2.23.

EVALUATION COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION QUESTIONS RESULTS

1. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library with an acceptable status Yes No of Active for use for the final design? Note 2

• If No, STOP and consult the Project Manager or list computer program as an unverified assumption.

2. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library the same as used in the Yes No calculation? Note 1

3. Is the Computer Program a preverified program? Note 1 Yes No

• If No, discuss below in Comments or additional clarification.

Verified for each application.

Verified by alternate calculation.

• If Yes, list the Software Dedication Report (SDR) number below.

SDR with Revision:

Is the scope of this calculation within the capabilities and limitations of the SDR? Note 1 Yes No

4. Are the computer program inputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

5. Are the computer program outputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

6. Are there any outstanding computer program errors that could affect the results? Yes No

• If Yes, is the issue listed as an unverified assumption or otherwise identified? Note 1 Yes No

7. Was the analysis performed on a computer designated to run the Computer Program? Yes No Note 1 List the verification method used (See QA-CP-06, Computer Program Applications) for the computer program where results are verified for each application or by alternate calculation:

Comparable proven computer software application.

Comments or additional clarification (a No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 requires an explanation):

QGIS was used to verify ArcGIS operation.

Note:

1. A No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 indicates the calculation is incomplete or requires an explanation in the comments block for special circumstances.

2. Consult the Software Library for a listing of Barge approved Computer Programs or software and associated user manuals.

3. Utilize a separate page for each Computer Program used in the calculation.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 12

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION Program Name: Note 3 PMP Evaluation Tool Program Version: 1.01 Description of Program:

The PMP Evaluation Tool was developed in Reference 2.3 as an ArcGIS add-in.

Description of the supporting application or function of the Computer Program to the Calculation:

The PMP Evaluation Tool queries a database and provides Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) depths for the specified storm duration and type.

EVALUATION COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION QUESTIONS RESULTS

1. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library with an acceptable status Yes No of Active for use for the final design? Note 2

• If No, STOP and consult the Project Manager or list computer program as an unverified assumption.

2. Is the Computer Program and version in the Software Library the same as used in the Yes No calculation? Note 1

3. Is the Computer Program a preverified program? Note 1 Yes No

• If No, discuss below in Comments or additional clarification.

Verified for each application.

Verified by alternate calculation.

• If Yes, list the Software Dedication Report (SDR) number below.

SDR with Revision: SDR-16-01 Revision 001 Is the scope of this calculation within the capabilities and limitations of the SDR? Note 1 Yes No

4. Are the computer program inputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

5. Are the computer program outputs listed or identified in the calculation? Note 1 Yes No

6. Are there any outstanding computer program errors that could affect the results? Yes No

• If Yes, is the issue listed as an unverified assumption or otherwise identified? Note 1 Yes No

7. Was the analysis performed on a computer designated to run the Computer Program? Yes No Note 1 List the verification method used (See QA-CP-06, Computer Program Applications) for the computer program where results are verified for each application or by alternate calculation:

SDR-16-01, Revision 001 Comments or additional clarification (a No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 requires an explanation):

Note:

1. A No response to questions 2-5 or 7, or a Yes to question 6 indicates the calculation is incomplete or requires an explanation in the comments block for special circumstances.

2. Consult the Software Library for a listing of Barge approved Computer Programs or software and associated user manuals.

3. Utilize a separate page for each Computer Program used in the calculation.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 13

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this calculation is to determine the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) values for all candidate storms based on Reference 2.3, review the resulting PMP depth - duration relationship and recommend the appropriate PMP event duration. The results will be used as input to subsequent surface runoff hydrograph development calculations.

2.0 References 2.1 Schwarz, Francis K., Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation over the Tennessee River Basin above Chattanooga, Hydrometeorological Report No. 41, Hydrometeorological Section, Office of Hydrology, U.S. Weather Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,

dated June 1965. Web. 28 Mar 2013. Copy included as Supplement 1.

2.2 Zurndorfer, E. A., F.K. Schwarz, E.M. Hansen, D.D. Fenn and J.F. Miller, Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation Estimates with Areal Distribution for Tennessee River Drainages Less Than 3,000 Mi2 in Area, Hydrometeorological Report No. 56, Hydrometeorological Section, Office of Hydrology, National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, dated October 1986. Web. 1 Apr 2010. Copy included as Supplement 2.

2.3 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002016000041, TVA Overall Basin Probable Maximum Precipitation and Local Intense Precipitation Analysis, Revision 001.

2.4 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080056, Sub Basin (1-6) Douglas Dam Watershed Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 1.

2.5 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080057, Sub Basin 48 (Sequatchie River)

Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.6 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080058, Sub Basin 46 (South Chickamauga Creek) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.7 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080059, Sub Basin (49-50) Guntersville Local Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.8 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080060, Nickajack Dam Local Watershed (Subbasins 47A and 47B) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 4.

2.9 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080061, Subbasins 38 (Chatuge Dam),

39 (Nottely Dam), 40 (Hiwassee Dam), 41 (Apalachia Dam), and 43 (Ocoee No. 1 Dam) Unit Hydrograph Validations, Revision 2.

2.10 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080062, Unit Hydrograph Validation for Subbasin 7 (Little Pigeon River at Sevierville), Revision 2.

2.11 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080063, Holston River Watershed above Cherokee Dam (Subbasins 9 through 15) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 14

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK 2.12 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080064, Chickamauga Dam Local (Subbasins 44B & 45) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 3.

2.13 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080065, Watts Bar Dam Local Watershed (Subbasins 25, 33, 34, 36 and 37) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.14 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080066, Subbasin 26 (Norris Dam) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.15 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080067, Subbasin 35 (Emory River at Mouth) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.16 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080068, Melton Hill Local (Subbasin 27)

Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.17 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080069, Ft. Loudoun-Tellico Dam Local Watershed (Subbasins 8, 16, 17, 18, and 24) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.18 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080070, Little Tennessee River Watershed above Chilhowee Dam (Subbasins 19 through 23) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.19 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080071, Unit Hydrograph Validation for Subbasin 44A, the Lower Hiwassee River from Charleston (River Mile 18.9) to Apalachia and Ocoee No. 1 Dams, Revision 2.

2.20 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080072, Wheeler Dam Watershed (Subbasins 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 63, 64 and 65) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.21 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080073, Wheeler Dam Watershed (Subbasins 53, 57, 59, 60, 61 and 62) Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 1.

2.22 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ000020080091, Subbasin 42 (Blue Ridge Dam)

Unit Hydrograph Validation, Revision 2.

2.23 BWSC Software Dedication Report (SDR) No. 16-01, PMP Evaluation Tool Package, July 2018, Revision 1, EDMS# W50 180807 001.

2.24 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002016000045, Weekly API Determination, Revision 000.

2.25 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation RSOO1HROGCDX00032620100001, Ocoee No. 1 Project Specific PMF Hydrologic Analysis, Revision 0.

2.26 Tennessee Valley Authority, Calculation CDQ0000002014000015, Inflows, Revision 0.

2.27 Tennessee Valley Authority, Areal Application of PMP Event Data for the Tennessee River Model above Wheeler Dam, April 12, 2017, EDMS # B41 170420 001.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 15

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK 3.0 Assumptions - None 4.0 Design Input Data Sec_ Input Parameter Source Location Value/Description Sub-basin GIS Original - Reference 2.24 Sub-basin shapes.

4.1 Reference 2.24 Shapefile Data as used - Appendix A positions and areas Original - Reference 2.26 Reservoir shapes, 4.2 Reservoir GIS Shapefile Reference 2.26 Data as used - Appendix A positions and areas Original - Reference 2.3 Storm type, duration and 4.3 Critical Storm Data Reference 2.3 Data as used - Appendix A date of occurrence References 2.3 Original - References 2.3 and 2.23 ArcGIS Tool for gridded 4.4 PMP Evaluation Tool and 223 As used - Appendix A PMP depths 5.0 Special Requirements / Limiting Conditions - None 6.0 Computations and Analysis 6.1 Microsoft Excel 2016 software was used as a calculator for this calculation.

6.2 Previous PMP development for Tennessee Valley sub-basins was based on information published by the National Weather Service specifically for the Tennessee Valley watershed (References 2.1 and 2.2). Since the data and analysis methods used for both of these publications were over 30-years old, an updated study of the PMP specifically for the Tennessee Valley using all data available to date was commissioned (Reference 2.3). This analysis produced an ArcGIS software tool to generate gridded PMP depths for a range of storm types and durations. The tool generated gridded PMP depth data that was then processed to produce weighted average PMP depths over the Tennessee Valley Authority project sub-basins. A detailed description of this process is presented in Appendix A. An additional check of the ArcGIS software function using comparable software (QGIS) was also performed in Appendix A.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 16

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK 6.3 Storm types included in the PMP data were based on information provided in Reference 2.3.

General and Tropical event type data were calculated for all events. As specified in Reference 2.3, the local type event is only applicable to total watershed areas of approximately 500 square miles. Since no variance is specified, local event type data for total watershed areas up to 500 square miles were reviewed. The Local event type was analyzed by determining the gridded point depth-duration data for all points within the TVA watershed for a 500 square mile event. The Local event type rainfall depths for the upper limit of 500 square-miles provides a bounding condition that can be used to evaluate the possibility of the local storm types controlling at projects across the TVA watershed.

Review of Reference 2.3 indicates that the depth-area-duration data developed represent rainfall volume bounding conditions but do not identify all possible PMP event orientations that could occur. This means that a smaller (i.e. heavier rainfall) PMP event could be embedded inside a larger area event as long as the larger event PMP volume is not exceeded.

As a result, it would be possible to have a smaller embedded PMP event that would challenge an upstream project while the overall PMP event would not.

Therefore, rainfall data sets developed in this calculation are based on analysis of watersheds above and between modeled TVA projects. In order to adequately track the resulting large number of data sets, Project IDs were assigned to identify the event limits and are shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Project Project ID Project Project ID Norris NO Watts Bar WB Melton Hill MH Chatuge CT South Holston SH Nottely NT Watauga WT Hiwassee HI Boone BO Apalachia AP Ft. Patrick Henry FP Blue Ridge BR Cherokee CR Ocoee #1 O1 Douglas DG Chickamauga CH Ft. Loudoun FL Nickajack NJ Fontana FN Guntersville GU Tellico TE Tims Ford TF Ft. Loudoun-Tellico FT Wheeler WE 6.4 Project PMP events anticipated to be required for subsequent PMF determinations and those recommended in Reference 2.27 based on total project drainage area were reviewed, judged appropriate for use and are shown in Tables 6.4a, 6.4b, 6.4c and 6.4d. Smaller project PMP events were included to allow evaluation of project overtopping and failure potential. Event rainfalls were calculated both to provide PMP depths over an entire project watershed as well as PMP depths concentrated over postulated critical watersheds between projects to allow evaluation of project overtopping potential and flood storage effects. The PMP events developed and the naming convention used are presented Tables 6.4a, 6.4b, 6.4c and 6.4d. PMP data were produced and a storm database file for each of the Local, Tropical and General storm types were developed for use in subsequent calculations. A generalized overview of the PMP depth data generation process is provided in Attachment 1 with further descriptions detailed in Appendix A.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 17

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 6.4a Total Area PMP Event Area Designation Basins in PMP Area (sq.mi.)

Apalachia to Chatuge-Nottely AP_CTNT 40-41 614.9 Above Apalachia AP 38-41 11018.3 Apalachia to Hiwassee AP HI 41 49.8 Above Boone and Douglas BODG 1-6,9-11 6,382.4 Above Boone BO 9-11 1,839-2 Above Boone-Douglas-Fontana BODGFN 1-6,9-11, 19-22 7,953.3 Boone to South Holston-Watauga BO_SHWT 11 667.7 Above Blue Ridge BR 42 231.6 Chickamauga-Tellico to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Fontana CHTE_NOFLFN 23-25, 27, 33-43,44A,4413,45 6,743.3 Chickamauga-Tellico to Norris-Fort Loudoun CHTE_NOFL 19-25, 27,33-43,44A,448,45 81319.1 Chickamauga-Tellico to Watts Bar-Fontana CHTE_WBFN 23, 24, 38-43,44A,44B,45 4,542.1 Chickamauga and Tellico to Watts Bar CHTE_WB 19-24,38-43,44A,448,45 6,113.0 Above Chickamauga CH 1-45 20,780.3 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Chatuge-CH NOCRDGCTNTBR 7-8,16-25, 27,33-37,40,41,43,44A,446,45 9,264.3 Nottely-Blue Ridge -

Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana GH_NOCRDGFNCTNTBR 7-8,16-18,23-25,27,33-37,40,41,43,44A,448,45 7,693.4 Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana CH NOCRDGFNHIBR 7-3,16-18, 23-25, 27,33-37,41,43,44A,448,45 7,123.3 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge -

Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana CH_NOCRDGFN 7-8,16-18, 23-25, 27, 33-43,44A,448,45 8,328.4 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Hiwassee-CH NOCROGHIBR 7-5,16-25, 27, 33-37,41,43r 44A,44B,45 5,699.2 Blue Ridge -

Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas CH_NOCRDG 7-3,16-25, 27,33-43,44A,44B,45 9,899-3 Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Chatuge-Nottely CH NOFLCTNTBR 19-25, 27, 33-37,4D,41,43,44A,446,45 7,684.2 Blue Ridge -

Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Hiwassee-Blue CH_NOFLHIBR 19-25, 27,33-37,41,43,44A,448,45 7,119.1 Ridge Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Chatuge-CH NOFTCTNTBR 25, 27,33-37,40,41,43,44A,446,45 5,053.4 Nottely-Blue Ridge -

Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Tellico-CH NOFTHI13R 25, 27, 33-37,41,43,44A,446,45 4,493.3 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge -

Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Tellico CH_NOFT 25, 27, 33-43,44A,44B,45 5,693.4 Chickamauga to Watts Bar-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue CH WBCTNTBR 40,41,43,44A,448,45 2,852.3 Ridge -

Chickamauga to Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge CH WBHIBR 41,43,44A,4413,45 2,287.2 Chickamauga to Watts Bar CH_WB 38-43,44A,446,45 3,487.3 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas-Fontana-GRDGFNCTNTBR_BO 1-6, 12 15,19-22,38, 39,42 8,335.4 iChatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Above Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana-Chatuge-Nottely-CRDGFNCTNTBR 1-6,9-15, 19-22, 38, 39,42 10,174.6 Blue Ridge Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and Above CROGFNCTNTBR-W SHT 1-6, 11-15,19-22, 38, 39,42 9,003.1 Douglas- Fontana-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 18

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 6.4b Total Area PMP Event Area Designation Basins in PMP Area (sq.mi.)

Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas-Fontana-CRDGFNHIBR BO 1-6,12-15, 19-22, 38-40,42 5,900.5 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge -

Above Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana-Douglas-CRDGFNHIBR 38-40,42, 19-22, 1-6,9-15 10,739.7 Cherokee Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and Above CRDGFNHIBR SH4VT 1-6,11-15,19-22,38-40,42 9,565.2 Douglas- Fontana-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Above Cherokee - Douglas - Fontana CRDGFN 1-6,9-15, 19-22 9,539.6 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas-Tellico CRDGTECTNTBR_BO i 6, 12-15,19 24, 38, 39,42 91394.3 Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Above Cherokee-Douglas-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-CRDGTECTNTBR 1-6,9-15,19-24,39,39,42 11,229.5 Blue Ridge Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and Above CROGTECTNTBR SHWT 1-6,11-15, 19-24, 33, 39,42 10,055.0 Douglas-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge -

Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas-Tellico CROGTEHIBR BO 1-6,12-15, 19-24, 35-40,42 9,955.4 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge -

Above Cherokee-Douglas-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue CRDGTEHIBR 1-6,9-15, 19-24,35-40,42 11,794.5 Ridge Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and Above CRDGTEHIBR_SHWT 1-6,11-15, 19-24, 35-40,42 10,623.0 Douglas-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas-Tellico CRDGTE_60 1-6,12-15,19-24 5,755.3 Above Cherokee-Douglas-Tellico CRDGTE 1-6,9-15, 19-24 10,594.5 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and Above CRDGTE_SHWT 1-6,11-15,19-24 9,423.0 Douglas-Tellico Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas CRDG BO 1-6,12, 13, 14&15 6,129.5 Above Cherokee-Douglas CRDG 1-61 9-15 7,965.7 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and Above CRDG-W SHT 1-6, 11-13,14&15 6,797.2 Douglas Cherokee to Boone CR 80 12,13, 14&15 1,586.3 Cherokee to Ft. Patrick Henry CR_FP 13,14&15 1,523.5 Above Cherokee CR 9-15 3,425.5 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga CR SHV%T 11-13, 14&15 2,254.0 Above Chatuge-Nottely CTNT 38-39 403.4 Above Chatuge CT 38 189.1 Above Douglas-Fontana-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge DGFNCTNTBR 1-6,19-22, 38, 39,42 6,749.1 Above Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana-Douglas DGFNHIBR 1-6,19-22,38-40,42 7,314.2 Above Douglas- Fontana DGFN 1-61 19-22 6,114.1 Above Douglas-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge DGTECTNTBR 1-6,19-24, 38, 39,42 7,804.0 Above Douglas-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge DGTEHIBR 1-6,19-24, 38-40,42 81369.1 Above Douglas-Tellico OGTE 1-6,19-24 7,169.6 Above Douglas DG 1-6 4,543.3 Fort Loudoun-Fontana to Cherokee FUN CR 1-8,16-22 7,694.3 Fort Loudoun to Boone FL BO 1-8,12-18 7,709.7 Ft. Loudoun to Cherokee-Douglas FL_CROG 7-8,16-18 1,580.1 Fort Loudoun to Cherokee FL CR 1-8,16-18 6,123.4 Above Ft. Loudoun FL 1-18 9,545.9 Fort Loudoun to South Holston-Watauga FL_SHWT 1-81 11-18 5,377.4 Above Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana FNHIBR 39-40,42, 19-22 2,770.9 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 19

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 6.4c Total Area PMP Event Area Designation Basins in PMP Area (sq.mi.)

Above Fontana FN 19-22 1,570.9 Ft. Patrick Henry to Boone FP BO 12 62.8 Above Ft, Patrick Henry FP 9-12 11901.9 Ft. Patrick Henry to South Holston-Watauga FP_SHWT 11-12 730.4 Fort Lou doun-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge to FTGTNTBR BO 1-8,12-24,3$ 39,42 10,970.4 Boone -

Fort Lou doun-Tellico-Ch atuge- Nottely-Blue Ridge FTCTNTBR 1-24, 38, 39,42 12,809.6 Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge to FTGTNTBR_SHWT 1-8,11-24, 38, 39,42 11,638.1 South-Holston-Watauga Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Boone FTHIBR BOFN 1-8, 12-18, 23, 24, 33-40,42 9,964.6 Fontana Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Boone FTHIOR_8O 1-8, 12-24, 39-40,42 11,535.5 Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to FTHIBR CRDGFN 7,8,16-18,23-24,38-39,40,42 3,835.1 Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana -

Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to FTHIBR GRDG 7,8,16-24, 38, 39,40,42 5,405.9 Cherokee-Douglas -

Above Fort Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge FTHIBR 1-24, 38-40,42 13,374.7 Fort-Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to South FTHIBR_SHWTFN 1-8, 11-18, 23, 24, 38-40,42 10,632.3 Holston-Watauga-Fontana Fart-Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to South FTHIBR_SHWT 1-8, 11-24, 38-40,42 12,203.2 Holston-Watauga Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Boone-Fontana FT SOFN 1-8,12-18, 23, 24 8,764.5 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Boone FT 80 1-8,12-24 10,335.4 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana FT_CRDGFN 7-8,16-18, 23-24 2,635.0 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee-Douglas FT_CRDG 7-8,16-24 4,205.9 Fort Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee-Fontana FT_CRFN 1-8,16-18, 23-24 7,178.3 Fort Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee FT_CR 1-8,16-24 8,749.1 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Fontana FT FN 1-18,23,24 10,603.7 Above Ft. Loudoun - Tellico FT 1-24 12,174.6 Fort Loudoun-Tellico to South Holston-Watauga FT SHWTFN 1-$,11-1$, 23, 24 9,432.2 Fontana Fort Loudoun-Tellico to South Holston-Watauga FT SHWT 1-8,11-24 11,003.1 Guntersville to Chickamauga GU_CH 46,47A,47B,48-50 3,671.3 Above Guntersville GU 1-50 24,452.1 Guntersville to Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana 7-8,16-18, 23-25, 27, 33-37,41,43,44A,448,45,46, OCRDGFN H I B R 10,799.6 Douglas-Cherokee-Norris 47A,47B,48-50 Guntersville to Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge GU_WBHIBR 41,43,44A,448,45,46,47A,47B,48-50 5,958.5 Above Blue Ridge - Hiwassee HIBR 38-40,42 11200.1 Hiwassee to Chatuge-Nottely HI_CTNT 40 565.1 Above Hiwassee HI 38-40 968.4 Above Melton Hill MH 26-27 3,344.7 Melton Hill to Norris MH_NO 27 431.9 Above Nickajack NJ 1-47B 21,852.9 Nickajack to Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana-Douglas- 7-8,16-18, 23-25, 27, 33-37,41,43,44A,44B,45,46, NJ NOCRDGFNHIBR 8,200.4 Cherokee-Norris - 47A,47B Above Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana-Douglas NOCRDGFNHIBR 38-40,42,19-22, 1-6,9-15,26 13,652.5 Cherokee-Norris Above Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana NOCRDGFN 1-6, 9-15,19-22, 26 12,452.4 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 20

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 6.4d Total Area RMR Event Area Designation Basins in RMR Area (sq.mi.)

Above Norris - Cherokee-Douglas NOCROG 1-6, 9-15, 26 10,881.5 Above Norris - Cherokee NOCR 9-15,26 6,335.3 Above Norris NO 26 2,912.8 Above Nottely NT 39 214.3 Ocoee #1 to Blue Ridge O1_SR 43 362.6 Above Ocoee #1 01 42-43 594.3 Above South Holston-Watauga-Douglas SHWTDG 1-6,9,10 5,714.8 Above South Holston-Watauga-Douglas-Fontana SHWTDGFN 1-6,9, 10,19-22 7,285.6 Above South Holston-Watauga SHWT 9-10 1,171.5 Above South Holston SH 9 703.3 Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Fontana TEHIBR_FN 23, 24, 38, 39,40,42 2,254.9 Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge TEHIBR 19-24, 38, 39,40,42 3,825.8 Tellico to Fontana TE_FN 23-24 1,054.9 Above Tellico TE 19-24 2,625.8 Above Tims Ford TF 59 533.3 Above Watts Bar-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge WBCTNTBR 1-33,39,42 17,923.5 Above Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge WBHIBR 1-40,42 13,493.6 Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Norris-Cherokee WBHIBR_NOCRDGFN 7,8,16-18, 23 25, 27,33-40t 42 6,041.2 Douglas-Fontana Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Norris-Cherokee WBHIBR NOCRDG 7,8, 16-25, 27, 33-40,42 7,612.1 Douglas -

Watts Bar to Fort Loudoun WB_FL 19-27, 33-37 7,744.7 Watts Bar to Fort Loudoun-Tellico WB_FT 25-27,33-37 5,118.9 Above Watts Bar WB 1-37 17,293.5 Watts Bar to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana WB_NOCROGFN 7-3,16-18, 23-2.5, 27, 33-37 4,841.1 Watts Bar to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas WB_NOCRDG 7-3,16-25, 27, 33-37 6,412.0 Watts Bar to Norris-Cherokee WB_NOCR 1-3, 16-25, 27, 33-37 10,955.3 Watts Bar to Norris-Fort Loudoun WB NOFL 19-25, 27, 33-37 4,831.9 Watts Barto Norris-Fort Loudoun-Tellico WB NOFT 25, 27, 33-37 2,206.1 Watts Bar to Norris WB_NO 1-25,27-37 14,380.7 Wheeler to Chickamauga WE CH 46,47A,47B,48-65 5,812.0 Above Wheeler WE 1-65 29,592.8 7-8,16-18, 23-25, 27, 33-43,44A,448,45,46,47A, Wheeler to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana WE_NOCROGFN 17,140.4 478,48-65 Wheeler to Guntersville WE TFGU 51-58,60-65 4,607.4 Wheelerto Tirns Ford-Blue Ridge-Hiwassee- Fontana-WE TFNOCRDGFNHIBR 7-g, 16-iS, 23-25, 27, 33-37,41t 43,44A,448,45,46, 15,407.6 Douglas-Cherokee-Norris 47A,47B,43-50,51-58,60-65 Wheeler to Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge WE_WBHIBR 11,099.2 41,43t 44A,448,45,46,47A,478,48-65 Above Watauga-Douglas WTDG 1-61 10 5,011.5 Above Watauga WT 10 463-2 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 21

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK 6.5 Simplification of the Rain-On-Reservoir (ROR) inflow component by utilization of the sub-basin area-weighted PMP depths for the ROR component as compared to each sub-basin and affiliated reservoir(s) having unique PMP depth-duration data was reviewed. The surface area of reservoirs within the Tennessee Valley watershed above Wheeler Dam is minimal with respect to the total watershed area. Consequently, small changes in the ROR inflow component will have minor impacts on the total inflow volume within each sub-basin. The typical location of reservoirs within the more sheltered, lower lying areas of a watershed combined with orographic effects generally leads to reduced PMP rainfall depths over the reservoir in comparison to the remaining watershed.

Comparison of the two methodologies is described in Section 6.6 of Appendix A. Analysis, included as Appendix B, calculated differences in PMP depth between the simplified approach and the reservoir area specific PMP for all three storm types applied to the watersheds above Watts Bar, Chickamauga and Wheeler. Analysis results are summarized below in Table 6.5 with negative values indicating that the simplified approach produces a higher (i.e. more conservative) PMP depth. All differences between the two ROR development methodologies were less than one-hundredth of an inch of PMP volume for the total watersheds reviewed. The analysis shows negligible differences in watershed applied PMP volume between the calculation of ROR using sub-basin averaged rainfall versus using unique GIS reservoir area rainfall. Therefore, it is appropriate for subsequent calculations to utilize the simplified approach and apply sub-basin average PMP depths during development of the ROR inflow component.

Table 6.5 Difference in Total Watershed Average PMP Depth Using Unique GIs Calculated ROR and Basin Area Averages (Inches)

Total Watershed square-Miles 24hr Local 120hr General 120hr Tropical Above WBH 17,293.53 -0.007 0.003 0.000 Above CMH 20,780.79 -0.009 -0.001 -0.007 Above WEH 1 29,592.76 1 -0.007 1 -0.007 1 0.000 7.0 Summary of Results 7.1 A database of PMP event depths as described in Section 6.4 was developed for each of the three storm types: General, Local and Tropical. Due to the large data set, the results contained in the database are adopted by reference.

7.2 The following Tables 7.2a, 7.2b, 7.2c, 7.2d, 7.2e, 7.2f and 7.2g show the cumulative PMP Event watershed average rainfall depths for the general and tropical type events at the specified durations as developed in Appendix A.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 22

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.2a Duration (in hours)

PMP Event Area Storm Type Designation 1 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120-Apalachia to Chatuge-Nottely General g_AP_CTNT 3.60 13.75 17.84 18.90 19.26 23.17 23.51 23.51 23.51 Tropical t_AP_CTNT 3.36 11.32 13.99 17.22 21.12 25.68 29.20 29.78 29.87 Above Apalachia General g_AP 2.96 11.73 16.40 17.34 17.65 22.05 22.30 22.30 22.30 Tropical t_AP 3.16 9.37 12.66 15.51 17.63 23.57 26.89 27.38 27.60 Apalachia to Hiwassee General g_AP_H1 5.17 18.07 21.37 22.01 24.00 27.40 27.99 27.99 27.99 Tropical t_AP_HI 4.75 13.63 16.21 20.23 24.37 29.23 33.92 35.07 35.11 Above Boone and Douglas General g_BODG 1.34 4.67 8.39 9.50 10.28 14.40 15.08 15.16 15.16 Tropical t_BODG 1.18 S.38 7.83 9.20 9.80 12.09 13.64 13.90 14.13 Above Boone-Douglas-Fontana General g_BODGFN 1.30 4.60 8.52 9.68 10.36 14.88 15.47 15.53 15.53 Tropical t_BODGFN 1.15 5.33 7.87 9.35 9.92 12.43 14.27 14.61 15.08 Above Boone General g BO 1.82 6.47 9.52 11.21 11.92 15.00 15.50 15.76 15.76 Tropical t_BO 1.49 5.88 8.19 9.71 10.35 12.77 14.00 14.29 14.58 Boone to South Holston-Watauga General g_BO_SHWT 2.53 7.20 9.48 11.69 12.80 15.25 15.64 15.77 15.78 Tropical t_BO_SHWT 1.39 5.56 7.69 9.01 9.90 11.48 12.36 12.53 12.53 Above Blue Ridge General g_BR 4.70 16.85 20.84 21.66 22.04 25.36 26.25 26.25 26.25 Tropical t_1311 4.64 13.74 16.49 1 20.50 25.14 1 29.39 33.28 34.06 34.36 Chickamauga-TellicotoNorris-Fort Loudoun- General g_CHTE_NOFLFN 1.73 5.38 9.79 10.99 11.95 16.15 16.50 16.57 16.57 Fontana Tropical t_CHTE NOFLFN 1.35 6.35 9.27 10.89 11.47 13.49 15.90 16.31 16.76 Chickamauga-TellicotoNorris-Fort Loudoun General g_CHTE_NOFL 1.59 5.05 9.51 10.74 11.66 16.14 16.48 16.55 16.55 Tropical t_CHTE NOFL 1.28 6.04 8.96 10.66 11.20 13.31 15.85 16.43 17.32 Chickamauga-Tellico to Watts Bar-Fontana General g_CHTE_WBFN 1.92 6.57 11.25 12.46 13.33 17.71 18.07 18.13 18.13 Tropical t_CHTE_WBFN 1.59 6.93 9.92 11.61 12.41 15.69 13.20 18.57 13.36 Chickamauga and Tellico to Watts Bar General g_CHTE_WB 1.76 6.05 10.90 12.20 13.04 17.77 18.10 18.15 13.15 Tropical t_CHTE_WB 1.46 5.59 9.57 11.29 12.13 15.42 18.11 18.54 18.91 Above Chickamauga General g_CH 0.79 3.02 5.57 6.68 9.01 11.51 12.06 12.24 12.42 Tropical t_CH 0.79 3.68 6.21 7.83 9.35 9.21 10.05 10.95 11.39 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas- General g_CH_NOCRDGCTNTBR 1.50 4.59 8.84 10.03 11.01 15.30 15.71 15.30 15.81 Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t CH NOCRDGGTNTBR 1.20 5.75 8.61 10.32 10.73 12.46 14.53 15.10 16.01 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas- General g_CH_NOCRDGFNCTNTBR 1.64 4.91 9.11 10.27 11.29 15.29 15.72 15.81 15.81 Fontana -Ch atuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CH NOCRDGFNCTNTBR 1.26 6.D4 8.91 10.53 10.99 12.43 14.45 14.86 15.41 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas- General g_CH_NOCRDGFNHISR 1.69 5.00 9.18 10.32 11.35 15.24 15.68 15.78 15.78 Fontana-Hiwrassee-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CH NOCRDGFNHIBR 1.29 6.13 8.99 10.58 11.06 12.43 14.38 14.73 15.15 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas- General g_CH_NOCRDGFN 1.58 4.77 8.98 10.15 11.15 15.25 15.67 15.77 15.77 Fontana Tropical t_CH_NOCRDGFN 1.23 5.93 8.79 10.45 10.87 12.38 14.43 14.89 15.60 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas- General g_CH_NOCRDGHIBR 1.56 4.73 8.98 10.16 11.16 15.37 15.78 15.88 15.88 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CH_NOCRDGHIBR 1.22 5.86 8.72 10.39 10.85 12.53 14.63 15.14 15.90 Chickamauga to Norris-Cherokee-Douglas General g_CH_NOCRDG 1.44 4.41 8.64 9.84 10.79 15.18 1 15.58 15.67 1 15.69 Tropical t_CH_NOCRDG 1.16 5.63 8.48 10.22 10.57 12.33 14.35 15.00 16.06 Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun- General g_CH_NOFLCTNTBR 1.65 5.22 9.70 10.93 11.87 16.27 16.61 16.68 16.68 Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t CH NOFLCTNTBR 1.32 6.17 9.09 10.77 11.36 13.50 16.05 16.57 17.28 Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun- General g CH NOFLHIBR 1.71 5.36 9.83 11.05 12.01 16.32 16.67 16.74 16.74 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Tropical t CH NOFLHIBR 1.35 6.27 9.19 1 10.85 11.49 13.65 16.16 16.62 17.18 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 23

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.26 Duration (in hours)

PMP Event Area Storm Type Designation 1 5 12 18 24 48 72 1 96 120 Chickamauga to Norris-Fortloudoun-Tellico- General g_CH_NOFTCTNTBR 1.90 5.80 10.25 11.43 12.36 16.43 16.73 16.78 16.78 Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CH_NOFTCTNTBR 1.44 5.71 9.67 11.21 11.86 13.99 16.39 16.70 16.83 Chickamauga to Norris-FortLoudoun-Tellico- General g_CH_NOFTHIBR 1.99 6.06 10.35 11.46 12.33 16.26 16.56 16.63 16.63 Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Tropical i_CH_NOFTHIBR 1.49 6.83 9.78 11.33 11.93 14.04 16.35 16.61 16.82 Chickamauga to Norris-Fort Loudoun-Tell ico General g_CH_NOFT 1.83 5.70 10.19 11.39 12.33 16.50 16.80 16.85 16.85 Tropical t_CH_NOFT 1.42 6.60 9-55 11.14 11.79 14.00 16.47 16.83 17.09 Chickamauga to Watts Bar-Chatuge-Nottely- General g_CH_WBCTNTBR 2.24 7.85 12.23 13.28 14.07 18.22 18.49 16.56 18.56 Blue Ridge Tropical t CH_WBCTNTBR 1.98 7.50 10.53 12.37 13.15 17.05 19.72 19.99 20.66 Chickamauga to Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue General g_CH_WBHIBR 2.33 7.99 1 12.13 13.09 13.84 17.76 13.02 18-12 18.12 Ridge Tropical t_CH_WBHIBR 2.05 7.53 10.55 12.33 12.98 16.82 19.40 19-58 20.33 Chickamauga to Watts Bar General g_CH_WB 2.13 7.50 12.07 13.20 14.00 18.33 18.60 18.66 18.66 Tropical t_CH WB 1.84 7.34 10.37 12.20 13.04 16.91 19.59 19.95 20.48 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas- General g_CRDGFNCTNTBR_BO 1.30 4.49 8-40 9.54 10.26 14.84 1 15.52 15-60 1 15.60 Fontana-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGFNCTNTBR_BO 1.13 5.26 7-79 9.23 9.81 12.18 13.88 14-22 14.76 Above C hero kee-Douglas-Fontana-Chatuge- General g_CRDGFNCTNTBR 1.12 3.84 7.42 5.51 9.19 13.75 14.44 14.53 14.53 Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGFNCTNTBR 0.99 4.78 7.22 5.72 9.05 10.93 12.48 12-85 13.54 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and General g_CRDGFNCTNTBR SHWT 1.22 4.19 7.93 9.05 9.79 14.33 15.04 15.12 15.12 Above Douglas-Fontana -Chatuge-Nottely- Tropical t_CRDGFNCTNTBR_SHWT 1.06 5.03 7.5C 5.97 9.42 11.55 13.16 1351 14.10 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas- General g_CRDGFNHIBR BO 1.27 4.39 3 33 9.47 10.16 1 14.84 15.49 15.57 15.57 Fontana-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGFNHIBR_BO 1.11 5.21 7.77 9.29 9.76 12.11 13.87 14.27 14.93 Above Blue Ridge -Hi w assee-F ontana- General g_CRDGFNHIBR 1.11 3.85 7.4=4 3.53 9.23 13.81 14.48 14-57 14.57 Douglas-Cherokee Tropical t_CRDGFNHISR 0.99 4.76 7.24 3.75 9.08 10.99 12.59 13-05 13.75 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and General g_CRDGFNHIBR 5HWT 1.19 4.10 7.86 8.99 9.67 14.33 15.00 15.09 15.09 Above Douglas-Fontana-Hiwassee-Blue Tropical t_CRDGFNHIBR_SHWT 1.04 4.98 7.48 8.99 9.38 11.49 13.16 13.57 14.28 AboveCherokee - Douglas - Fontana General g_CRDGFN 1.15 3.91 7-47 8.55 9.27 13.73 14.46 14-56 14.56 Tropical t_CRDGFN 1.01 4.82 7.24 8.69 9.06 10.96 12.45 12-79 13.35 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas- General g_CRDGTECTNTBR_80 1.23 4.22 8.09 9.22 9.91 1455 15.23 15.31 15.31 Tell ico-Chatuge-Notte ly-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGTECTNTBR_80 1.98 5.12 7.68 9.21 9.62 11.80 13.49 13.90 14.59 Above C hero kee-Douglas-Tellico-Chatuge- General g_CRDGTECTNTBR 1.09 3.79 7.32 8.40 9.15 1 13.64 14.33 14.43 14.43 Nottely-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGTECTNTBR 0.98 4.71 7.i.

1 8.70 9.04 10.85 12.40 12.86 13.52 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and General g_CRDGTECTNTBR SHWT 1.16 3.95 7.66 8.77 9.46 14.08 14.77 14.86 14.86 Above Douglas-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely- Tropical t_CRDGTECTNTBR_SHWT 1.02 4.90 7.40 8.93 9.26 11.23 12.83 13.25 13.98 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas- General g_CRDGTEHIBR_B0 1.20 4.11 7.99 9.12 9.77 14.52 15.16 15.24 15.24 Tellico-Hiw ass ee-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGTEHIBR_BO 1.05 5.06 7.63 9.20 9.56 11.69 13.43 13-90 14.72 Above Cherokee-Douglas-Tell ico-Hiwassee- General g_CRDGTEHIBR 1.08 3.80 7-32 8.41 9.16 1 13.68 14.35 14.44 14.44 Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGTEHIBR 0.97 4.68 7.18 8.72 9.06 10.88 12.47 12.99 13.69 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and General g_CRDGTEHIBR SHWT 1.14 3.96 7-66 8.78 9.48 14.13 14.80 14-88 14.88 AboveDouglas-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge Tropical t_CRDGTEHIBR_SHWT 1.01 4.88 7-40 3.95 9.29 11.27 12.92 13-40 14.16 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas- General g_CRDGTE_80 1.28 4.34 8.20 9.32 10.06 14.59 15.30 15.39 15.39 Tellico Tro ica I t CRDGTE BO 1.10 1 5.19 7.72 9.21 9.69 11.90 1 13.53 13.85 1 14.44 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 24

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.2c Duration (in hours)

PMP Event Area Storm Type Designation 1 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120 Above Cherokee-Douglas-Tellico General g_CRDGTE 1.11 3.79 7.32 8.40 9.13 13.59 14.32 14-42 14.42 Tropical t CRDGTE 0.98 4.74 7.19 8.68 9.01 10.81 12.30 12-71 13.33 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and General g_CRDGTE SHWT 1.20 4.06 7.75 8.85 9.59 14.10 14.84 14.93 14.93 Above Douglas-Tellico Tropical t_CRDGTE_SHWT 1.04 4.96 7.43 8.92 9.31 11.31 12.85 13.21 1 13.81 Cherokee to Boone and Above Douglas General g_CRDG_BO 1.37 4.66 8.25 9.33 10.18 14.23 15.10 15-20 15.20 Tropical t_CRDG_BO 1.16 5.31 7.72 9.06 9.64 11.65 12.92 13-13 13.31 Above Cherokee-Douglas General g_CRDG 1.21 4.02 7.40 8.45 9.27 13.35 14.20 14.31 14.31 Tropical t CRDG 1.04 4.88 7.21 8.55 8.97 10.68 11.88 12.10 12.38 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga and General g_CRDG_SHWT 1.30 4.33 7.3 10 8.89 9.74 13.78 14.57 14.77 14.77 Above Douglas Tropical t_CRDG_SHWT 1.10 5.08 7.43 8.75 9.25 11.09 12.29 1 12.49 12.69 Cherokee to Boone General g_CR_BO 1.93 5.78 8.30 10.64 11.62 14.23 15.05 15.50 15.52 Tropical t_CR_BO 1.27 5.20 7.31 8.57 8.93 9.07 9.07 9.07 9.07 Cherokee to Ft. Patrick Henry General g_CR_FP 1.96 5.87 8.40 10.70 11.71 14.30 15.11 15-53 15.57 Tropical t_CR_FP 1.29 5.26 7-39 8.67 9.03 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 Above Cherokee General g_CR 1.52 1 4.99 7.87 9.39 10.26 13.58 14.49 14.80 14.80 Tropical t_CR 1.20 5.15 7.28 8.53 9.03 10.25 10.90 11.03 11.17 Cherokee to South Holston-Watauga General g_CR_SHWT 1.69 5.19 7.76 9.90 10.71 13.52 14.35 14.88 14.88 Tropical t_CR_SHWT 1.19 5.00 6.99 8.18 8.57 9.11 9.33 9.39 9.45 Above Chatuge-Nottely General g_CTNT 3.74 13.93 17.71 18.44 18.80 22.23 22.48 22.48 22.48 Tropical t_CTNT 4.04 11.79 14.40 17.57 21.81 25.97 29.33 29.51 29.73 Above Chatuge General g_CT 4.83 17.13 21.03 21.87 23.18 26.61 27.71 27.71 27.71 Tropical t CT 4.98 14.83 17.76 22.13 27.11 30.97 35.14 35-83 36.12 Above Douglas-Fontana-Chatuge-Nottely- General g_DGFNCTNTBR 1.48 5.34 9.73 10.94 11.65 16.32 16.82 16.86 16.86 Blue Ridge Tropical t_DGFNCTNTBR 1.31 5.88 8.58 10.16 10.93 14.12 16.26 16.62 16.99 Above Blue Ridge -Hi wassee-Fontana- General g_DGFNHIBR 1.44 5.23 9.63 10.85 11.52 16.30 16.77 16-81 16.81 Douglas Tropical t_DGFNHIBR 1.28 5.82 8.54 10.13 10.85 13.99 16.17 16-56 1 17.06 Above Douglas- Fontana General g_DGFN 1.52 5.46 9.83 11.03 11.79 16.34 16.87 16-92 16.92 Tropical t DGFN 1.34 5.94 3.62 10.20 11.02 14.23 16.32 16.64 16.95 Above Douglas-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely- General g_DGTECTNTBR 1.41 5.02 1 9.32 10.52 1 11.19 15.92 16,43 16.48 16.48 Blue Ridge Tropical t_DGTECTNTBR 1.24 5.71 8.4i 10.00 10.64 13.53 15.61 16-00 16.57 AboveDouglas-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_DGTEHIBR 1.37 4.89 9.20 10.41 11.03 15.87 1 16.35 16.40 16.40 Tropical t_DGTEHIBR 1.22 5.64 8.36 9.96 10.54 13.38 15.49 15.93 16.63 Above Douglas-Tellico General g_DGTE 1.45 5.15 9.46 10.65 11.37 15.98 16.53 16-58 16.58 Tropical t_DGTE 1.27 5.78 8.47 10.04 10.74 13.69 15.73 16-08 16.51 Above Douglas General g_DG 1.57 5.66 9.69 10.83 11.64 15.71 16.32 16.41 16.41 Tropical t_DG 1.39 6.01 8.59 10.11 10.89 13.80 15.55 15.86 16.11 Fort Loudoun-Fontana to Cherokee General g_FLFN_CR 1.42 4.88 9.C5 10.22 10.94 15.44 15.98 16-05 16.05 Tropical t FLFN CR 1.22 5.64 8.3i 9.86 10.47 13.01 14.75 15.07 1 15.49 Fort Lo udoun to Boone General -,_=L BO 1.32 4.27 7.88 8.94 9.79 13.85 14.56 14.77 14.77 Tropical t FL BO 1.10 5.18 7.63 9.03 9.48 11.16 12.26 12.44 12.68 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 25

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.2d Duration in hours PMP Event Area Storm Type Designation 1 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120 Ft. Loudoun to Cherokee-Douglas General g_FL_CRDG 2.36 8.41 12.20 13.11 13.78 17.29 17.73 17.96 17.96 Tropical t_FL_CRDG 1.78 7.30 10.31 12.18 12.87 14.34 14.97 15.14 15.23 Fort Loudoun to Cherokee General g_FL_CR 1.49 5.02 9.03 10.14 10.94 15.05 15.68 15.76 15.76 Tropical t_FL_CR 1.26 5.76 8.37 9.82 10.45 12.70 14.13 14.36 14.56 Above Ft. Loudoun General g_FL 1.15 3.68 7-04 8.06 &.89 12.98 13.79 13.91 13.91 Tropical t_FL 0.98 4.73 7-10 8.52 8.82 10.24 11.31 11.51 11-86 Fort Loudoun to South Holston-Watauga General g_FL_SHWT 1.25 4.01 7.47 8.52 4.39 13.43 14.27 14.3& 14.38 Tropical t_FL_SHWT 1.04 4.96 7.35 8.75 9.13 10.67 11.72 11.90 12.18 Above Blue R idge-Hiwassee- Fontana General g_FNHIBR 2.30 9.33 14.43 15.72 16.61 21.52 21.83 21.83 21.83 Tropical t_FNHIBR 2.36 3.16 1 11.30 13-83 15.40 21.10 24.19 24.71 25-46 Above Fontana General g_FN 2.77 11.23 16.23 17.39 18.05 22.84 23.13 23.13 23.13 Tropical t_FN 2.86 9.24 12.67 15.73 17.80 23.95 27.37 27.87 28.51 Ft. Patrick Henry to Boone General g_FP_80 4.05 8.06 9-97 13-59 16.07 19.18 18.51 18.83 18.86 Tropical t_FP_BO 1.48 5.95 8.19 9.01 9.02 9.10 9.10 9-10 9.10 Above Ft. Patrick Henry General g_FP 1.79 6.34 9.37 11.11 11.83 14.91 15.43 15.71 15.71 Tropical t_FP 1.47 5.80 8.08 9.57 10.19 12.50 13.69 13.97 14.27 Ft. Patrick Henry to South Holston-Watauga General g_FP_SHWT 2.47 7.01 9-30 11-64 12.75 15.23 15.66 15.80 15-80 Tropical t_FP_SHWT 1.35 5.41 7-52 8.82 9.58 11.08 11.87 12.02 12.02 FortLoudoun-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue General g_FTCTNTBR BO 1.17 3.93 7.63 8.73 9.51 13.99 14.66 14.76 14.76 Ridge to Boone Tropical t_FTCTNTBR_80 1.02 4.91 7.47 9.04 9.38 11.22 12.70 13.14 13.79 Fort Loudoun -Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue General g_FTCTNTBR 1.05 3.66 1 7.02 8.08 &.96 13.24 13.93 14.05 14.05 Ridge Tropical t FTCTNTBR 0.94 4.55 7.04 8.58 &.93 10.52 11.90 12.39 12.95 FortLoudoun-Tellico-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue General g_FTCTNTBR SHWT 1.12 3.80 7.34 8.43 9.26 13.64 14.34 14.45 14.45 Ridge to South-Holston-Watauga Tropical t_FTCTNTBR_SHWT 0.98 4.74 7.26 8.81 9.14 10.36 12.28 12.72 13.33 FortLoudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee- Blue Ridge General g_FTHIBR BOFN 1.20 3.90 7-58 8.66 9.43 13.31 14.53 14.63 14-64 to Boone-Fontana Tropical t_FTHIBR BOFN 1.02 4.98 7-50 9.04 9.34 11.03 12.36 12.70 13-30 FortLoudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_FTHIBR_60 1.15 3.93 7.62 1 8.72 9.51 14.02 14.67 14.77 14.77 to Boone Tropical t_FTHIBR_BO 1.01 4.87 7.45 9.04 9.38 11.24 12.77 13.26 13.95 Fort Lo udoun Jell ico-Hiwassee- Blue Ridge General g_FTHIBRCRDGFN 1.98 7.09 11.62 12-76 13.57 17.88 18.35 18.47 18-47 to Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana Tropical t_FTHIBR_CRDGFN 1.71 7.01 9-94 11-74 12.64 15.72 17.40 17.72 18-03 FortLoudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_FTHIBR_CRDG 1.79 6.29 11.19 12.49 13.33 18.03 18.48 18.53 18.53 to Cherokee-Douglas Tropical t_FTHIBR_CRDG 1.50 6.64 9.59 11.32 12.28 15.74 17.85 18.19 18.44 Above Fort Loud oun-Tel lico-Hiwa sse e-Blue General g_FTHIBR 1.03 3.65 7.00 8.07 1 8.95 13.26 13.93 14.04 14-05 Ridge Tropical t FTHIBR 0.94 4.51 7.02 3.58 8.93 10.53 11.95 12.49 13.09 Fort-Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_FTHIBR SHWTFN 1.14 3.77 7.29 8.35 9.17 13.47 14.21 14.32 14.32 to South Holston-Watauga-Fontana Tropical t_FTHIBR SHWTFN 0.99 4.80 7.28 3.30 9.09 10.67 11.94 12.30 12.85 Fort-Loudoun-Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_FTHIBR SHWT 1.10 3.80 7.33 8.42 9.26 13.67 14.35 14.45 14-45 to South Holston-Watauga Tropical t_FTHIBR_SHWT 0.97 4.71 1 7.24 j 8.31 9.15 1 10.33 12.34 12.35 13-49 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Boone-Fontana General g_FT_BOFN 1.27 4.08 7.71 8.76 9.61 13.75 14.55 14.66 14.66 Tropical t FT BOFN 1.06 5.08 7.56 9.02 1 9.40 11.05 12.22 12.44 12.81 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 26

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.2e Duration (in hours)

PMPGventArea Storm Type Designation 1 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Boone General g_FT_BO 1.19 3.93 7.65 8.74 9.51 13.96 14.67 14.77 14.77 Tropical t_FT_BO 1-02 4.95 7-49 9.04 9.37 11-19 12.62 12-99 13.59 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee-Douglas- General g_FT_CRDGFN 2.14 7.59 11.70 12.69 13.47 17.38 17.85 18.10 18.10 Fontana Tropical t_FT_CRDGFN 1.79 7.18 10.06 11.89 12.71 14.97 16.11 16.36 16.64 Ft-Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee-Douglas General g_FT_CRDG 1-96 6.98 11.71 12-92 13.75 18-23 18.70 18-80 18.80 Tropical t_FT_CRDG 1-67 6.94 1 9-87 11-77 1 12.81 16-17 18.07 1 18-40 18.69 Fort Loudoun-Tellico to Cherokee-Fontana General g_FT_CRFN 1.43 4.80 8.81 9.93 10.71 14.92 15.54 15.63 15.63 Tropical t_FT_CRFN 1.21 5.65 8.28 9.77 10.32 12.49 13.95 14.21 14.49 Fortloudoun-TellicotoCherokee General g_FT_CR 1.34 4.58 8.69 9.85 10.54 15.11 15.65 15.74 15.74 Tropical t_FT_CR 1.16 5.47 8.15 9.73 10.22 12.56 14.29 14.65 15.22 Ft. Loudoun-Tellico to Fontana General g_FT_FN 1.11 3.60 6.95 7.97 8.82 1 12.93 13.73 13.85 13.85 Tropical t_FT_FN 0.96 4.66 1 7.06 8.54 8.81 10.21 11.33 11.60 12.01 Above Ft. Loudoun-Tellico General g_FT 1.07 3.66 7.05 8.10 8.96 13.22 13.94 14.06 14,06 Tropical t_FT 0-95 4.59 7.06 8.59 8-92 10-50 11.83 12.26 12.79 Fort Loudoun-TellicotoSouth Holston- General g_FT_SHWTFN 1.20 3.83 7.30 8.35 9.20 13.34 14.15 14.27 14.27 Watauga-Fontana Tropical t FT SHWTFN 1.01 4.87 7.29 8.75 9.06 10.57 11.68 11.92 12.30 Fort Loudoun-TellicotoSouth Holston- General g_FT_SHWT 1.14 3.80 7.35 8.43 9.26 1 13.61 14.34 14.45 14.45 Watauga Tropical t_FT_SHWT 0-99 4.78 7-27 8.80 9.13 10-83 12.19 12.58 13.14 Guntersville to Chickamauga General g_GU_CH 2.37 7.52 12.22 1 13.40 14.20 18.68 18.95 18.95 18.95 Tropical t_GU_CH 1.72 7.45 10.57 12.28 12.92 15.82 18.65 18.83 19.33 Above Guntersville General g_GU 0-79 2.92 5-43 6.64 8-04 11-34 11.83 11-98 12.42 Tropical t_GU 0-76 3.62 6-12 7.73 8-26 9.05 9-71 10-67 11.20 Guntersville to Blue Ridge-Hiwassee- General g_GU_NOCRDGFNHIBR 1.50 4.17 8.17 9.32 10.68 1 14.51 14.88 14.97 15.03 Fontana-Douglas-Cherokee-Norris Tropical t_GU_NOCRDGFNHIBR 1.12 5.52 8.38 10.14 10.43 11.33 13.19 13.93 14.98 Guntersville to Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue General g_GU_WBHIBR 1-97 5.81 10.43 11.67 12.64 16-96 17.21 17-24 17.24 Ridge Tropical t_GU_WBHIBR 1-41 6.70 9-73 11-33 11.89 13-57 16.40 16-82 17.15 Above Blue Ridge - Hiwassee General g_HIBR 2.89 11.53 16.30 17.29 17.71 22.22 22.48 22.48 22.48 Tropical t_HIBR 3.09 9.25 12.50 15.33 17.36 23.37 26.66 27.14 27.48 Hiwassee toChatuge-Nottely General g_HI_CTNT 3-69 14.03 18.04 19-13 19.48 23.34 23.69 23-69 23.69 Tropical t_HI_CTNT 3-97 11-64 14.27 17-53 21.65 26-03 29.62 30-20 30.30 Above Hiwassee General g_HI 3.02 11.92 16.53 17.48 17.78 22.14 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tropical t_HI 3.23 9.55 12.81 15.71 17.98 23.82 27.16 27.65 27.85 Above Melton Hill General g_MH 1.97 6.17 9.86 10.79 11.47 15.04 15.48 15.63 15.63 Tropical t_N11H 1.47 6.39 9.05 10.53 11.05 11.64 11.91 11.92 11.98 Melton Hill to Norris General g_MH_NO 3.51 12.23 1556 16.30 1 16.85 1 19.79 19.97 20.00 20.01 Tropical t_MH_NO 2.70 9.65 12.55 14.93 15.66 17.21 18.39 18.49 18.61 Above Nickajack General g_NJ 0.80 2,99 1 5.53 6.67 8.02 11.46 11.99 12.16 12.42 Tropical t_N1 0.78 3.66 1 6.19 7.81 8.33 9.17 1 9.95 10.88 11.35 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 27

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.2f Duration (in hours)

PMP Event Area Storm Type Designation 1 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120 Nickajackto Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana- General g_NJ_NOCRDGFNHIBR 1.64 4.72 8.86 10.01 11.13 15.01 15.43 15.53 15.53 Douglas-Cherokee-Norris Tropical t NJ_NOCRDGFNHIBR 1.23 5.95 8.82 10.46 10.86 11.95 14.05 14.50 15.15 Above Blue Ridge-Hiwassee-Fontana- General g_NOCRDGFNHIBR 1.02 3.52 6-73 7.76 8.71 12.82 13.46 13-58 13.58 Douglas-Cherokee-Norris Tropical t_NOCRDGFNHIBR 0-91 4.38 6-84 8.37 8.72 10-13 11.36 11-85 12.37 Above Norris-Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana General g_NOCRDGFN 1.06 3.51 6.75 7.77 8.69 12.74 13.43 13.55 13.55 Tropical t NOCRDGFN 0.92 4.45 6.87 8.36 8.69 10.06 11.19 11.56 12.02 Above Norris - Cherokee-Douglas General g_NOCRDG 1.10 3.43 6.62 7.60 8.52 12.41 13.17 13.29 13.29 Tropical t_NOCRDG 0.92 4.51 6.35 8.29 8.55 9.71 10.59 10.81 11.14 Above Norris- Cherokee General g_NOCR 1.39 4.13 7.38 1 8.41 9.29 12.93 13.82 13.94 13.94 Tropical t_NOCR 1.07 5.04 7.34 8.58 9.01 9.79 10.21 10.28 10.34 Above Norris General g_NO 1.98 6.32 9.87 10.78 11.46 14.88 15.34 15.52 15.52 Tropical t_NO 1-49 6.36 8-96 10.45 10.97 11.42 11.59 11-59 11.64 Above Nottely General g_NT 3.87 13.78 17.00 17.67 18.02 20.71 21.55 21.55 21.55 Tropical t_NT 3.77 11.22 14.01 16.71 20.48 24.45 27.63 28.42 28.66 Ocoee #1toBlue Ridge General g_O1_BR 3-75 13-79 17.43 18-14 18.44 21-72 21.96 22-02 22.02 Tropical t_01_SR 3-85 11-20 13.74 1 16-75 20.41 24-74 27.79 28-05 28.30 Above Ocoee 41 General g_01 3.52 13.37 17.28 18.32 18.66 22.41 22.74 22.74 22.74 Tropical t_01 3.67 10.77 13.56 16.28 19.84 24.60 27.91 28.48 28.55 Above South Holston-Watauga-Douglas General g_SHWTDG 1-42 5.00 8.93 10-03 10.81 14-94 15.58 15-65 15.65 Tropical t_SHWTDG 1.25 5.65 8-17 9.59 10.27 12-83 14.50 14-77 14.99 Above South Holston-Watauga-Douglas- General g_SHWTDGFN 1.38 4.93 1 9.06 10.22 10.91 15.46 16.01 16.06 16.06 Fontana Tropical t_SHWTDGFN 1.23 5.59 8.20 9.72 10.39 13.19 15.15 15.49 15.90 Above South Holston-Watauga General g_SHWT 2.19 7.95 11.19 12.58 13.20 16.34 16.75 16.87 16.91 Tropical t_SH%VT 1-81 6.71 9-38 11.24 12.16 15-37 17.01 17-29 17.40 Above South Holston General o_SH 2.47 7.53 9.93 11.63 12.69 15.15 15.55 15.76 15.80 Tropical t_SH 1.53 6.13 8.54 10.00 10.89 12.55 13.43 13.69 13.60 Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Fontana General g_TEHIBR_Fiv 2-28 9.06 13.73 14-83 15.70 20.12 20.51 20-62 20.62 Tropical t_TEHIBR_FN 2.33 8.02 11.05 13.29 14.55 19.27 21.78 22.22 22.89 Tellico-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g TEHIBR 2.06 7.96 13.05 14.33 15.20 20.05 20.43 20.48 20.48 Tropical t_TEHIBR 1.93 7.41 10.45 12.63 13.92 18.77 21.51 21.98 22.47 Tellico to Fontana General g TE_FN 2.74 10.40 14,56 15.50 16.17 19.95 20.43 20.51 20.51 Tropical t_TE_FN 2.52 8.44 11.62 14.06 15.49 19.54 21.76 22.09 22.24 Above Tellico General g_TE 2.28 9.04 13.93 1 15.10 15.98 20.63 21.03 21.12 21.12 Tropical t_TE 2.26 8.01 11.10 13.55 15.01 19.98 22.68 23.13 23.82 Above Tims Ford General g TF 3-44 12-67 16.20 17-18 1 17.50 20-90 1 21.22 21-35 21.35 Tropical t_TF 3-36 9.86 12.74 14-86 16.58 21-07 24.57 24-83 25.14 Above Watts Bar-Chatuge-Nottely-Blue General g_WBCTNTBR 0.85 3.17 5.94 6.96 8.23 11.87 12.48 12.64 12.72 Ridge Tropical t WBCTNTBR 0.83 3.92 6.43 8.02 8.47 9.45 10.42 11.11 11.54 Above Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_WBHIBR 0.83 3.16 5.88 6.92 8.20 11.86 12.45 12.61 12.69 Tropical t WBHIBR 0-82 3.86 6.39 7.99 8.45 9.44 10.42 11-16 11.60 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 28

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK Table 7.2g Duration (in hours)

PMP EventArea Storm Type Designation 1 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120 Watts Bar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge to Norris- General g_WBHIBR_NOCRDGFN 1.75 5.54 9.97 11.15 12.07 16.24 16.69 16.76 16.76 Cherokee-Douglas-Fontana Tropical t_WBHIBR_NOCRDGFN 1.38 6.40 9.29 10-87 11.52 13.64 15.46 15.75 15-98 Watts Bar-Hiwassee-BlueRidgetoNorris- General g_WBHIBR_NOCRDG 1.62 5.26 9.76 10.99 11.87 16.35 16.76 16.83 16.83 Cherokee-Douglas Tropical t_WBHIBR NOCRDG 1.32 6.13 9.02 10.68 11.31 13.67 15.78 16.19 16.76 Watts Barto Fort Loudoun General g_WB_FL 1.59 4.84 8.99 10-13 11.06 1 15.16 15.60 1 15.67 15-67 Tropical t_WB_FL 1.24 5.83 8.59 10-18 10.72 12.36 13.96 14.28 14-72 Watts earto Fort Loudoun-Tellico General g_WB_FT 1.78 5.13 9.08 10.13 10.94 14.63 15.09 15.16 15.16 Tropical t_WB_FT 1.31 6.15 8.87 10.26 10.81 11.69 12.67 12.78 12.82 Above Watts Bar General g_WB 0.88 3.19 6.00 7.00 8-27 11.89 12.52 12.68 12-75 Tropical t_WB 0.84 3.98 6.48 8.05 8-48 9.47 10.42 11.06 11-48 Watts ea r to Norris-Cheroke e-Do ugl as- General g_WB_NOCRDGFN 1.86 5.75 10.04 11.17 12.06 15.99 16.47 16.56 16.56 Fontana Tropical t WB_NOCRDGFN 1.43 6.57 9.45 10.96 11.63 13.41 14.95 15.16 15.28 Watts Barto Norris-Cherokee-Douglas General g_WB_NOCRDG 1.74 5.55 10.04 11.25 12.17 16.46 16.90 16.97 16.97 Tropical t_WB_NOCRDG 1.38 6.34 9.22 10-86 11.58 13.90 15.87 16.19 16.49 Watts Bar to Norris-Cherokee General g_WB_NOCR 1.25 4.05 7.90 1 9.02 9.90 14.22 14.73 14.81 14.84 Tropical t_WB_NOCR 1.06 5.15 7.83 9.47 9.82 11.55 13.22 13.75 14.50 Watts BartoNorris-Fort Loudoun General g_WB_NOFL 1.92 6.36 11.10 12.35 13.25 17.66 18.05 18.10 18.10 Tropical t_WB_NOFL 1.55 6.81 9.78 11-53 12.45 15.56 17.94 18.27 18-47 Watts Barto Norris-Fort Loudoun-Tellico General g_WB_NOFT 2.38 7.66 11.59 12.50 13.21 16.93 17.22 17.36 17.36 Tropical t_WB_NOFT 1.96 7.44 10.41 12.17 12.75 15.57 17.54 17.57 18.25 Watts Bar to Norris General g_WB_NO 1.01 3.49 6.66 7.68 8-78 12.74 13.40 13.53 13-58 Tropical t_WB_NO 0.91 4.39 6.91 8.47 8-84 10.12 11.38 11.98 12.53 Wheelerto Chickamauga General g_WE_CH 1.85 5.09 9.70 1 10.99 12.23 16.63 16.82 16.82 16.83 Tropical t_WE_CH 1.27 6.19 9.23 11.00 11.36 11.98 15.05 15.80 16.92 Above Wheeler General g-WE 0.78 2.76 5.18 6.56 7-99 11.04 11.47 11.59 12-38 Tropical t_WE 0.73 3.51 5.94 7.51 8-05 8.80 9.26 10.12 10-77 Wheelerto Norris-Cherokee-Douglas- General g_WE_NOCRDGFN 1.09 3.74 7.09 8.20 9.97 13.71 13.96 14.04 14.53 Fontana Tropical t_WE_NOCRDGFN 0.98 4.63 7.52 9.35 9.84 10.62 11.65 13.16 13.96 Wheelerto Guntersville General g_WE_TFGU 2.26 6.96 11.98 13-28 14.09 18.90 19.18 19.18 19.18 Tropical t WE TFGU 1.57 7.23 10.36 11-99 12.63 14.93 17.81 18.09 18.28 WheelertoTims Ford-Blue Ridge-Hiwassee- General g_WE_TFNOCRDGFNHIBR 1.22 3.87 7.41 1 8.53 10.25 13.96 14.24 14.32 14.66 Fontana-Douglas-Cherokee-Norris Tropical t_WE_TFNOCRDGFNHIBR 1.02 4.89 7.78 9.59 10.03 10.75 11.99 13.30 14.18 Wheelerto WattsBar-Hiwassee-Blue Ridge General g_WE_WBHIBR 1.61 4.45 8.70 9.93 11.39 15.50 15.70 15.74 15-78 Tropical t_WE_WBHIBR 1.15 5.69 8.66 10-48 10.79 11.51 13.83 14.84 16-20 Above Watauga-Douglas General g_WTDG 1.51 5.38 9.50 10.64 11.44 15.60 16.20 16.26 16.26 Tropical t WTDG 1.33 5.92 8.51 9.98 10.75 13.64 15.46 15.76 15.98 Above Watauga General g_WT 3.26 12.26 15.59 16-43 16.84 19.89 20.25 20.25 20-25 Tropical :T 3.03 10.00 12.94 1 15-76 19.58 23.20 26.32 26.72 26-85 QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page 29

Title:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Preparer SNH (PMP) Development Checker EEK 7.3 The following Table 7.3 shows the PMP event watershed average rainfall depths for the Local type event for watersheds up to 500-sq.-mi. and durations to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Table 7.3 Duration (in hours)

Area PMP Event Area (sq.mi.) Designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 24 Above Watauga 468.2 I WT 4.91 9.83 12.82 15.18 15.33 15.65 17.13 17.55 Above Chatuge 189.1 1_CT 7.33 14.65 19.13 22.73 23.05 23.52 25.90 26.33 Above Nottely 214.3 I NT 7.04 14.06 18.37 21.82 22.13 22.55 24.83 25.29 Above Blue Ridge 231.6 1_BR 7.09 14.17 18.51 21.97 22.29 22.68 24.99 25.46 Ocoee #i to Blue Ridge 362.6 1-01-BR 6.21 12.41 16.20 1 19.20 19.48 1 19.81 21.78 1 22.21 Melton Hill to Norris 431.9 I_MH_NO 4.81 9.62 12.54 14.85 15.06 15.34 16.82 17.17 Ft. Patrick Henry to Boone 62.8 I_FP_BO 5.39 8.87 11.59 13.78 13.94 14.29 15.97 16.10 Above Chatuge-Nottely 403.4 I_CTNT 6.31 12.62 16.46 19.49 19.77 20.16 22.09 22.53 Apalachia to Hiwassee 49.8 I AP HI 7.53 14.97 19.55 23.25 23.52 24.11 27.01 27.29 8.0 Conclusions 8.1 Tennessee Valley sub-basin average PMP depths were calculated and results were placed in a database format for each of three storm types analyzed: General, Tropical, and Local.

These data are adopted by reference for use in the parent calculation and subsequent calculations.

QA-DE-01-F07, Rev 1

Page 1 ELECTRONIC FILE ATTACHMENTS Document: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev. 000 Plant: GEN

Subject:

Gridded Probable Maximum Precipitation Development The files listed below, which contain both input and output data, are stored in TVA FILEKEEPER.

Attachment Name Attached to Parent Calculation Supplement 1 Supplement 1 - HMR41.pdf Supplement 2 Supplement 2 - HMR56.pdf Contained in CDQ0000002016000044 Files.zip (FILEKEEPER # KDQ0000002018000009)

Parent Calculation Native Files Calculation Form NEDP-2 R19 FORMS.docx Calculation Form NEDP-2-2 thru 2-6.docx Calculation Body QA-DE-01-F01-F07 Calculation Forms.docx Tables for worksheet Rainfall_Tables.xlsx.txt calculation & appendices Electronic File Table CDQ0000002016000044_Electronic_File_Attachments.docx Electronic File Table PDF CDQ0000002016000044_Electronic_File_Attachments.pdf Appendix A -Daily Rainfall Data Extraction.pdf Appendix A -Daily Rainfall Data Extraction.docx Appendix_A-A_Subbasins_Reservoirs.zip.txt Appendix_A-B_FULLBASINSHAPEFORTOOL.zip.txt Appendix_A-C_QGIS_ArcGIS_Automation_Instructions.pdf Appendix_A-D_Base_Macro_File_AWA_Tool_Automation.xlsm.txt Appendix_A-E_LinebyLine_Automation_Descriptions.xlsx.txt Appendix_A-F_GIS_Python_Base.py Appendix_A-G_QGIS_Depths.py Appendix_A-H_Raster_PMP_Subbasin_Coverage.xlsx.txt Appendix_A-I_Alternate_Depth_Area_Check.xlsm.txt Appendix_A-J_ GISOutputs.xlsx.txt Appendix_A-K_Reservoir_Depths.xlsx.txt Appendix B Appendix_B_Reservoir_Analysis.xlsx.txt Attachment 1 Attachment_1_PMP_Depth_Generation.pdf

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A2

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.2 Base GIS sub-basin and encapsulating shapefiles required for GIS processing are included as Appendix A-A and A-B, respectively. The base GIS sub-basin shapefile defining the TVA project sub-basin areas is appropriate for use in determination of sub-basin average PMP depths.

Confirmation of the GIS sub-basin shapes is provided by the comparison presented in Appendix A-I and below in Table 6.2 that shows negligible differences between the computed areas and those defined by the references denoted below in Table 6.2. Detailed GIS methodology is described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.4.2.

Table 6.2 Sub-basin Sub-basin Lable ArcGIS Area Source Area D 1 Source 2 D

1. (sq.mi.) (sq.mi.) (sq.mi.)

01 French Broad River at Asheville 944.42 Ref. 2.4, Table 1 944.4 0.00% 0.02 02 French Broad River, Newport to Asheville 913.08 Ref. 2.4, Table 1 913.1 0.00% -0.02 03 Pigeon River at Newport 667.14 Ref. 2.4, Table 1 667.1 0.01% 0.04 04 Nolichucky River at Embreeville 804.85 Ref. 2.4, Table 1 804.8 0.01% 0.05 Nolichucky local, Embreeville to Nolichucky 05 378.71 Ref. 2.4, Table 1 378.7 0.00% 0.01 Dam 06 Douglas Dam local 835.04 Ref. 2.4, Table 1 835 0.01% 0.04 07 Little Pigeon River at Sevierville 352.06 Ref. 2.10, Sec. 6.1 352.1 -0.01% -0.04 08 French Broad River local 206.47 Ref. 2.17, Table 1 206.5 -0.01% -0.03 09 South Holston Dam 703.25 Ref. 2.11, Sec. 6.1 703.2 0.01% 0.05 10 Watauga Dam 468.25 Ref. 2.11, Sec. 6.1 468.2 0.01% 0.05 11 Boone local 667.67 Ref. 2.11, Sec. 6.1 667.7 0.00% -0.03 12 Fort Patrick Henry 62.77 Ref. 2.11, Sec. 6.1 62.8 -0.05% -0.03 13 North Fork Holston River near Gate City 668.89 Ref. 2.11, Sec. 6.1 668.9 0.00% -0.01 14-15 Total Cherokee 854.63 Ref. 2.11, Sec. 6.1 854.6 0.00% 0.03 Holston River local, Cherokee Dam to 16 319.60 Ref. 2.17, Table 1 319.6 0.00% 0.00 Knoxville gage 3 17 Little River at mouth 378.65 Ref. 2.17, Table 1 378.6 0.01% 0.05 18 Fort Loudoun local 323.36 Ref. 2.17, Table 1 323.4 -0.01% -0.04 19 Little Tennessee River at Needmore 436.50 Ref. 2.18, Table 1 436.5 0.00% 0.00 20 Nantahala 90.88 Ref. 2.18, Table 1 90.9 -0.03% -0.02 21 Tuckasegee River at Bryson City 653.77 Ref. 2.18, Table 1 653.8 -0.01% -0.03 22 Fontana local 389.75 Ref. 2.18, Table 1 389.8 -0.01% -0.05 Little Tennessee River local, Fontana Dam to 23 404.70 Ref. 2.18, Table 1 404.7 0.00% 0.00 Chilhowee Dam Little Tennessee River local, Chilhowee Dam 24 650.16 Ref. 2.17, Table 1 650.2 -0.01% -0.04 to Tellico Dam 25 Watts Bar local above Clinch River 295.28 Ref. 2.13, Table 1 295.3 -0.01% -0.02 26 Clinch River at Norris Dam 2912.79 Ref. 2.14, Sec. 6.1 2912.8 0.00% -0.01 27 Melton Hill local 431.87 Ref. 2.16, Sec. 6.1 431.9 -0.01% -0.03 33 Clinch River local above mile 16 37.24 Ref. 2.13, Table 1 37.2 0.10% 0.04 34 Poplar Creek at mouth 135.23 Ref. 2.13, Table 1 135.2 0.02% 0.03 35 Emory River at mouth 868.79 Ref. 2.15, Sec. 6.1 868.8 0.00% -0.01 36 Clinch River local, mouth to mile 16 29.34 Ref. 2.13, Table 1 29.3 0.12% 0.04 37 Watts Bar local below Clinch River 408.38 Ref. 2.13, Table 1 408.4 0.00% -0.02 38 Chatuge Dam 189.08 Ref. 2.9, Table 1 189.1 -0.01% -0.02 39 Nottely Dam 214.30 Ref. 2.9, Table 1 214.3 0.00% 0.00 Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A3

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK Table 6.2 Sub-basin Sub-basin Lable ArcGIS Area Source Area D Source D

1. (sq.mi.)1 (sq.mi.)2 (sq.mi.)

Hiwassee River local below Chatuge and 40 565.07 Ref. 2.9, Table 1 565.1 -0.01% -0.03 Nottely 41 Apalachia local 49.82 Ref. 2.9, Table 1 49.8 0.05% 0.02 42 Blue Ridge Dam 231.62 Ref. 2.22, Sec. 6.1 231.6 0.01% 0.02 Ocoee No. 1 local, Ocoee No. 1 to Blue Ridge 43 362.64 Ref. 2.9, Table 1 362.6 0.01% 0.04 Dam Hiwassee River local, Charleston gage at mile 44A 686.61 Ref. 2.19, Sec. 6.1 686.6 0.00% 0.01 18.9 to Apalachia and Ocoee No. 1 Dams Hiwassee River local, mouth to Charleston 44B 396.03 Ref. 2.12, Table 1 396 0.01% 0.03 gage at mile 18.9 45 Chickamauga local 792.10 Ref. 2.12, Table 1 792.1 0.00% 0.00 46 South Chickamauga Creek near Chattanooga 428.09 Ref. 2.6, Sec. 7.1 428.1 0.00% -0.01 Nickajack local below North Chickamauga 47A 545.71 Ref. 2.8, Table 1 545.7 0.00% 0.01 Creek @ gage 47B North Chickamauga Creek @ gage 98.30 Ref. 2.8, Table 1 98.3 0.00% 0.00 48 Sequatchie River at Whitwell 4 400.02 Ref. 2.5, Sec. 6.1 400 0.00% 0.02 49 Guntersville North local 1025.94 Ref. 2.7, Table 1 1027.1 -0.11% -1.16 50 Guntersville South local 1069.10 Ref. 2.7, Table 1 1068.9 0.02% 0.20 Guntersville Reservoir 104.11 Ref. 2.7, Table 1 103 1.07% 1.11 51 Paint Rock Creek near Woodville 321.02 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 321.07 -0.02% -0.05 52 Paint Rock Local 138.07 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 138.09 -0.02% -0.02 53 Flint River near Chase 343.04 Ref. 2.21, Table 1 343.1 -0.02% -0.06 54 Flint River Local 224.87 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 224.85 0.01% 0.02 55 Cotaco Creek at Florette 136.21 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 136.21 0.00% 0.00 56 Cotaco Creek Local 101.05 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 101.05 0.00% 0.00 57 Limestone Creek near Athens 121.31 Ref. 2.21, Table 1 121.3 0.01% 0.01 58 Limestone Creek Local 157.42 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 157.42 0.00% 0.00 59 Tims Ford Dam 533.31 Ref. 2.21, Table 1 533.2 0.02% 0.11 60 Elk River Local, Tims Ford to Fayetteville 293.36 Ref. 2.21, Table 1 293.4 -0.01% -0.04 61 Elk River Local, Fayetteville to Prospect 490.20 Ref. 2.21, Table 1 490.2 0.00% 0.00 62 Richland Creek at Mouth 487.97 Ref. 2.21, Table 1 488 -0.01% -0.03 63 Sugar Creek at Mouth 176.95 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 176.95 0.00% 0.00 64 Elk River Local, Mile 16.5 to Prospect Gage 145.12 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 145.12 0.00% 0.00 65 Wheeler Local 1381.05 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 1379.95 0.08% 1.10 Wheeler Reservoir 89.74 Ref. 2.20, Table 1 90.9 -1.27% -1.16 NOTES: Totals 29592.76 29592.61 0.00% 0.145 1 ArcGIS results shown to two decimal places. Actual results to nine decimal places and left unrounded for all 2 Source results shown to accuracy reported in written reference.

3 Area includes 30-sq.-mi. of karst considered non-contribution for surface runoff.

4 Area includes 18-sq.-mi. of karst considered non-contribution for surface runoff.

Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A4

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.3 The AWA PMP tool computes point depth-duration values for defined grid points spaced at 90 arc-second (0.025 decimal degree) intervals across the Tennessee Valley watershed above Kentucky Dam as well as the Great Falls project basin. The PMP point values are determined for General, Tropical and Local type events over the TVA project sub-basins for durations specified by the user from a list. A number of automation routines were developed that utilize both the Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) and Python programming language to run the PMP evaluation tool and perform subsequent ArcGIS processing to produce weighted average PMP depths over project sub-basins throughout the Tennessee Valley. The weighted average PMP depths computed within ArcGIS were compared to values calculated in QGIS to ensure that the ArcGIS software platform was operating correctly and with the required degree of precision. A template Microsoft Excel workbook was developed to execute the PMP evaluation tool, write a project PMP specific Python script for ArcGIS processing, execution of Python script and retrieval/storage of ArcGIS computed weighted average depths. A separate Python script was developed to allow GIS processing of the gridded precipitation data within the QGIS software environment. A flow chart of the ArcGIS automation and general user directions describing the required directory structure, naming conventions and inputs for the automations are described in Appendix A-C. The ArcGIS spatial analyses performed and descriptions of each automation routine are provided below.

6.3.1 The template Excel file (Appendix A-D) is required to be named according to the event designation for each PMP event detailed in Tables 6.4a and 6.4b of the parent calculation.

The development of the project PMP specific Python script requires an input text file to identify the sub-basins within each PMP event area as noted in Tables 6.4a, 6.4b, 6.4c and 6.4d of the parent calculation. Once the workbook has been copied to the working directory of the users choice and renamed according to the PMP event designator, the sub-basins within the PMP event area of interest can be input by the user under the column header Primary Sub-basins in column B of the Inputs tab of the Excel workbook.

Following insertion of each sub-basin within the PMP area, a VBA macro linked to the button labeled Create Python Input File can be executed. A text file is created that identifies the number and IDs of the sub-basins within the project PMP area. A line-by-line description of the Excel macro to produce the Python input file can be seen in Appendix A-E.

6.3.2 Additional input in the form of a base Python script is required before the PMP event specific Python script can be developed via an Excel VBA macro. The base Python script includes all the necessary functionality for execution of the AWA tool and ArcGIS spatial processing of rainfall data but requires modifications dependent on the specific PMP event and user options. The base ArcGIS Python script is included as Appendix A-F. A line-by-line description of the base Python script is included in Appendix A-E and a summary of GIS processing steps are detailed below.

6.3.2.1 The sub-basins within the PMP area are read from the input text file and extracted from the base sub-basins shapefile (Reference/Section 4.2) to produce an event specific shapefile with only those sub-basins of interest. The resulting shapefile follows the naming convention XXX_Final.shp with the XXX corresponding to the PMP event designator.

Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A5

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.3.2.2 The event specific shapefile produced in Section 6.3.2.1 is dissolved into one shape and the PMP event area in square-miles is calculated. The resulting dissolved shapefile follows the naming convention XXX_Dissolved.shp with the XXX corresponding to the PMP event designator. The computed area in square-miles is entered into the PMP evaluation tool interface to define the PMP area utilized during DAD table lookups. The remaining storm type and duration selections are entered based on user responses during creation of event specific PMP Python script as detailed below in Section 6.3.3.

6.3.2.3 The resulting gridded point PMP data from the PMP evaluation tool for the TVA watershed above Kentucky Dam are trimmed to within 15,000 feet of the shapefile created as described in Section 6.3.2.1 to reduce subsequent spatial processing time but still provide adequate point coverage for TIN creation. The resulting trimmed point data shapefile follows the naming convention XXX_X_Points_Final.shp where XXX corresponds to the PMP event designator and X is either G, T or L corresponding to the General, Tropical and Local storm types, respectively.

6.3.2.4 The trimmed gridded point PMP data was then utilized to create an individual Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) for each duration and storm type utilizing the depth as the height field from the gridded point data for the TIN. The resulting TINs are then processed with the ArcGIS polygon volume tool to compute a total volume above each sub-basin. Individual sub-basin average rainfall depths are computed by dividing the volume of precipitation over each sub-basin by the sub-basin square footage to return average depth in inches.

Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A6

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.3.3 The Microsoft Excel macro linked to the button labeled Create Temporary Python Script is executed to modify the base Python script, Appendix A-F, detailed in Appendix A-E and Section 6.3.2. The base Python script is modified based on user responses and logic as detailed in the flow diagram presented below in Figure 6.3 to provide the desired functionality. The temporary scenario script created for the Watts Bar to Norris, Cherokee and Douglas Dams(WB_NOCRDG) storm event required manual modification to account for rounding errors when defining the AWA Tool output geodatabase. Line 139 of the resulting temporary simulation specific script was modified to add a value of 1 to provide the correct AWA tool output geodatabase name. No modifications for remaining storm events were required.

Do you want to run If Local storm type is BOTH the AWA tool Yes to be evaluated, Is and compute the the PMP event area sub-basin avg. No

<500 square-miles?

depths?

No Yes Yes Do you want to run Yes Would you like to Local Storm Type is ONLY the AWA tool? evaluate the omitted from No average depths General, Tropical, analysis will be computed and Local Storm No No Would you like to evaluate the Compute basin General Storm Type?

average depths from a previously OK generated NoAWA tool output and Final Sub-basin shapefile? Would you like to evaluate the Local Storm Type?

Modify base Python Cancel Script based on user preferences to produce a user Would you like to evaluate the specified PMP event Tropical Storm Type? specific Python Script Exit Routine.

PMP event specific script has not been created.

Cancel Exit Routine.

Event Specific Has the user Python Script has OK Please select a AWA No Yes been developed selected any of the storm type or cancel three storm types and exit...

for analysis?

Figure 6.3 PMP Event Specific Python Script Generation Flow Diagram Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A7

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.3.4 The Microsoft Excel macro named Run_AWA_Tool and linked to the button labeled Execute Script is run to open an instance of a Python shell window to allow execution of the previously developed PMP event specific Python script. A line-by-line description of the Excel macro to execute the python script is contained in Appendix A-E.

6.3.5 Execution of the Excel macros and Python script described in Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.4 produces a final ArcGIS polygon shapefile with an attribute table containing the computed weighted average depth for each sub-basin within the PMP event area. The Excel macro named AverageDepth and linked to the button labeled Get AWA Rainfall Depths from GIS Files opens the .dbf file associated with the final ArcGIS shapefile and extracts the computed sub-basin average depths. The sub-basin average depths for each storm type and duration are stored in a newly created Excel file with the name XXX_GIS_Output.xlsx where XXX is the PMP designator. Additionally, a PMP summary table is prepared in which computed watershed average depths are reported for each duration and storm type.

The sub-basin and total PMP event watershed average depths are stored in the Basin GIS Output and PMP Summary tabs of the Excel file, respectively. A line-by-line description of the Excel macro is contained in Appendix A-E. An additional sub-routine was prepared to format a standard table for reporting the total PMP event watershed average depths.

This sub-routine solely performs administrative formatting tasks consequently a line-by-line description has not been included.

6.4 The ArcGIS spatial analysis and computations were checked with alternate software as they did not utilize NQA dedicated software. Confirmation of the ArcGIS analysis and computations following execution of the PMP evaluation tool was provided by direct comparison of computed sub-basin average depths for each storm type and duration for all PMP events with values developed in an alternate methodology that utilized QGIS. A python script was developed to provide sub-basin average PMP depths resulting from the PMP evaluation tool gridded depth data output and is included as Appendix A-G. A line-by-line description of the Python script is included in Appendix A-E and a summary of processing steps are detailed below.

6.4.1 The QGIS Python script requires a number of inputs from the user to include the base sub-basins shapefile (Appendix A-A), the Local, General and Tropical gridded point output file from the PMP evaluation tool and the processing directory of user choice. The user also is given the option to select by checkmark whether to evaluate each of the three storm types.

6.4.2 Following entry of required inputs, the script then creates a raster file with the value of each cell equating to the PMP depth for a given storm type and duration at a given location.

The raster of PMP depths across the Tennessee Valley is created to provide a pixel size equivalent to the 90 arc-second spacing of the PMP evaluation tool. The final algorithm utilized to compute the spatial statistics of the PMP depth-data determines an average value of raster cells with their centroid in each sub-basin. The coarse spacing of the raster cell centroids and the irregular sub-basin shapes produce instances in which the raster centroids are outside of the basin yet still account for some of the coverage over the sub-basin. Increased spatial coverage and accuracy of spatial statistics is provided by resampling to a finer resolution by use of a bilinear interpolation yielding final raster datasets with cell sizes reduced by an order of magnitude. The final algorithm to compute the sub-basin average PMP event depths creates a sub-basin shapefile for each storm type and duration with the final sub-basin average weighted PMP event depths within the attribute table. The final sub-basin average weighted PMP event depths for each duration can then be extracted for comparison to the depth-duration data computed in ArcGIS.

Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A8

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.5 The PMP evaluation Tool produces a point grid of PMP depth-duration data that is utilized to create TINs and raster surfaces for determination of weighted average sub-basin depths within ArcGIS and QGIS, respectively. Analysis of available depth-duration data points showed multiple sub-basin boundary locations without data points outside of the sub-basin boundary. The lack of data points outside of the sub-basin boundary leads to incomplete coverage and/or incorrect interpolations of resulting TIN and raster files used in the PMP sub-basin average depth computations. Sub-basins in the TVA watershed above Wheeler Dam without sufficient depth-duration coverage are shown below in Table 6.5.1. The total area without coverage is less than two-hundredths of a square-mile; therefore, the small portions of the watershed without coverage have a minor impact on the final computed sub-basin average depths. The analysis of raster coverage for the TVA sub-basins above Wheeler Dam, including GIS processing steps, is included as Appendix A-H.

Table 6.5.1 TVA Watershed Above Wheeler Raster Coverage Area Without Raster Sub-Basin Sub-basin Area Percentage Without Coverage ID (Square Miles) Raster Coverage (Square Miles) 1 to 12 7003.72 0.0000 0.00000%

13 668.89 0.0113 0.00169%

14 to 49 15606.24 0.0000 0.00000%

50A 1173.20 0.0039 0.00033%

51 to 65B 5140.70 0.0000 0.00000%

Total 29592.76 0.0152 0.00005%

A Guntersville Reservoir Area Included B Wheeler Reservoir Area Included The full data set output from the PMP evaluation tool was utilized to create the raster surfaces within QGIS, but due to processing time the ArcGIS process selects only those output data points within 15,000 feet of the sub-basins of interest to be utilized during TIN creation. The loss of potential triangulation points and the inherent TIN creation process leads to larger sub-basin areas without sufficient PMP depth data coverage. Although the TIN and volume analyses performed in ArcGIS have reduced coverage it is minimal and has an insignificant impact on the final computed sub-basin average depths. This assertion is further substantiated by equivalent results between the two software platforms and methodologies as shown below in Table 6.5.2 with maximum absolute percent differences of less than one percent. The alternate QGIS check confirms accurate ArcGIS operation in addition to the confirmation of appropriate methodologies by computing sub-basin average depths with the use of raster files and spatial grid statistics as compared to the use of TIN files and volume analyses as performed in ArcGIS. The full analysis of PMP event depth-duration data between the software platforms is included as Appendix A-I. Review of computed PMP depths across the ArcGIS and QGIS platforms identified a project PMP depth above Chatuge as an outlier.

Analysis indicated areas around the sub-basin boundary with zero depth as the PMP points from the AWA tool did not provide adequate coverage during TIN creation for the single sub-basin. PMP depths utilized for Chatuge are based on the QGIS analysis to eliminate results without the complete PMP coverage.

An additional analysis was performed to evaluate the upper limit of the Local storm type by manual implementation of the ArcGIS processing steps detailed in Sections 6.3. The PMP evaluation tool was run such that the PMP event area utilized during DAD table lookups coincided with the 500 square-mile limit of the Local Storm type (Reference 2.23). Following the ArcGIS processing the PMP evaluation tool results were checked with the alternate QGIS software/methodology as described in Section 6.4. Analysis of the Local Storm type at the upper limit of 500 square-miles between the software platforms has been included within Appendix A-I and is presented below in Table 6.5.2.

Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A9

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A10

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 6.6 Area-weighted average PMP rainfall depth-duration data were computed for the reservoirs noted below in Table 6.6.1 for the 500 square-mile limit Local event in addition to the Tropical and General type PMP events above Wheeler Dam for analysis within the parent calculation. The shapefile for Watts Bar reservoir was subdivided based on sub-basin boundaries to provide the portion of Watts Bar reservoir within each sub-basin. Reservoir GIS shapefiles from Appendix A-2 of Reference 2.26 were input into ArcGIS and the TINs developed for the General, Tropical and Local event types (Section 6.3.2.4 and 6.5) were then utilized to compute the reservoir average PMP depth by use of the ArcGIS polygon volume tool. Computed PMP depth data for the 500 square-mile limit Local event, Tropical event above Wheeler and the General event above Wheeler computed for each reservoir and duration are included on the Reservoir Depths and Watts Bar By Basin Depths tabs of the Microsoft Excel document included as Appendix A-K.

The ArcGIS spatial analysis and computations were checked with alternate software as they did not utilize NQA dedicated software. Confirmation of the ArcGIS analysis was provided by direct comparison of computed reservoir average depths for each storm type and duration with values developed in an alternate methodology that utilized QGIS. The python script described in section 6.4 was employed to provide the average rainfall over each reservoir for the 500 square-mile limit Local event, Tropical event above Wheeler and the General event above Wheeler. Analysis of results between the software platforms showed a maximum absolute percent differences of less than one-quarter of a percent between the two software platforms and methodologies, as shown in the QGIS Check tab of Appendix A-K.

Table 6.6.1 - Reservoirs and Associated Sub-basins Located Within Located Within Reservoir Square-Miles Reservoir Square-Miles Basin ID Basin ID South Holston 9 11.97 Ocoee #1 43 3.27 Fort Patrick Henry 12 1.31 Chickamauga 45 55.40 Boone 11 6.85 Chatuge 38 11.12 Watauga 10 9.93 Hiwassee 40 9.48 Norris 26 52.06 Blue Ridge 42 5.18 Cherokee 14&15 43.32 Nottely 39 6.52 Douglas 6 47.32 Nickajack 47A 16.30 Melton Hill 27 8.74 Ocoee #3 43 0.93 Fort Loudoun 18 23.66 Ocoee #2 43 0.25 Tellico 24 24.49 Watts Bar (25) 25 12.01 Fontana 22 15.82 Watts Bar (33) 33 0.75 Tims Ford 59 22.01 Watts Bar (36) 36 6.14 Apalachia 41 1.72 Watts Bar (37) 37 40.57 Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

CALCULATION Calculation No: CDQ0000002016000044 Rev 0 Page A11

Title:

Appendix A - GIS PMP Event Depth Computations Preparer SNH Checker EEK 7.0 Summary of Results The PMP event depths computed by ArcGIS for each of the PMP Evaluation tool outputs on the Tennessee River above Wheeler Dam have been checked by parallel computation on the Quantum GIS platform. Total PMP event rainfall depths for the Tennessee River sub-basins above Wheeler Dam differed by less than one percent for the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 18, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hour0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> durations within the PMP event and storm types analyzed. The sub-basin weighted average depths computed for each PMP event are suitable for use in the parent and subsequent calculations. PMP event depth-duration data for the General, Local and Tropical storm types are included as Appendix A-J.

8.0 Conclusions Computations performed in ArcGIS have been checked by Quantum GIS and any differences are within the precision required. Calculations performed in the development of final PMP sub-basin average depths and their distribution within the Tennessee River sub-basins are suitable for use in subsequent calculations and the parent calculation.

Form QA-DE-01-07, Rev 1

PMP Event Designator and Appendix_A-associated TVA Sub-basins Base Shapefiles D_Base_Macro_File_AWA_Tool_

(Tables 6.4a through 6.4d of (Appendix A-A and A-B)

Automation.xlsm parent calculation)

ArcGIS polygon volume tool applied with each PMP depths computed for each sub-basin TIN and shapefile created in Section 6.3.2.1 to extracted from shapefile and saved in a new Create input file and scenario script provide a volume above each sub-basin. excel spreadsheet. Weighted average depths (Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.3) Volume divided by sub-basin square footage for entire PMP area are computed and to provide average PMP depth in inches. included in spreadsheet.

(Section 6.3.2.4) (Section 6.3.5)

PMP depths at each point utilized to create a Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) for each duration and storm type (Section 6.3.2.4)

Initiate calculations by running script TVA sub-basin average depths for each prepared in Section 6.3.3. storm type and duration (Section 6.3.4) Total PMP watershed Average depth for each storm type and duration Gridded PMP points trimmed to remove points >15,000 feet away from shapefile created in Section 6.3.2.1 (Section 6.3.2.3)

Total area of sub-basins in square-Event specific shapefile of TVA sub- miles entered into PMP evaluation basins within project PMP area tool and run to produce gridded created. point PMP data for the TVA (Section 6.3.2.1) watershed above Kentucky Dam (Sections 6.3.2.2)

Enclosure 4 Barge Affidavit CNL-20-032

AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TENNESSEE)

)ss.

COUNTY OF DAVIDSON)

1. My name is Carrie Stokes. I am Senior Vice President, for Barge Design Solutions, Inc. and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.

2. I am familiar with the criteria applied by Barge Design Solutions, Inc. to determine whether certain Barge Design Solutions, Inc. information is a trade secret, proprietary, and commercially sensitive. I am familiar with the policies established by Barge Design Solutions, Inc.

to ensure the proper application of these criteria .

3. I am familiar with the Barge Design Solutions, Inc. information contained in the report:

"Software Dedication Report, PMP Evaluation Tool Package, SOR 16-01" dated August 2018 and referred to herein as "Dedication Report." Information regarding the dedication methodology and test problem suite has been classified by Barge Design Solutions, Inc.

as proprietary and a trade secret in accordance with the policies established by Barge Design Solutions, Inc. for the control and protection of proprietary information in furtherance of the business of Barge Design Solutions, Inc..

4. This Dedication Report contains trade secrets and information of a proprietary nature of the type customarily held in confidence by Barge Design Solutions, Inc. and not made available to the public. Based on my experience, I am aware that other companies regard information of the kind contained in this Dedication Report as commercially sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, and confidential.

5. This Dedication Report has been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information conta ined in this Document be withheld from publ ic disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The information for which withholding from disclosure is requested qualifies under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information."

6. The following criteria are customarily applied by Barge Design Solutions, Inc. to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:

(a) The information reveals details of Barge Design Solutions, lnc.'s research and development processes or their results.

(b) Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor to significantly reduce its expenditures, in time or resources, to design, produce, or market a similar product or service.

(c) The information includes test data or analytical techniques concerning a process, methodology, or component.

(d) The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for Barge Design Solutions, Inc. in product optimization or marketability.

(e) The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by Barge Design Solutions, Inc., would be helpful to competitors, and would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Barge Design Solutions, Inc.

The information in the Dedication Report is considered proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 6(a) - 6(e) above.

7. In accordance with Barge Design Solutions, lnc.'s policies governing the protection and control of information, trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information contained in this Dedication Report have been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside Barge Design Solutions, Inc. only as required and under suitable agreement providing for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.

8. Barge Design Solutions, Inc. po licy requires that proprietary information be kept in a secured file or area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.

9. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

SUBSCRIBED before me this .q~ dayof (Y)~ 8oao My Commission Expires: